<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_20_0440220</id>
	<title>Internet Explorer 9 Will Not Support Windows XP</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269085200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hothardware.com/" rel="nofollow">MojoKid</a> writes <i>"As it turns out, news this week is that the same features that made IE9's hardware-acceleration possible probably aren't compatible with Windows XP. Microsoft initially dodged giving a straight answer to the question of XP support but has since <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Microsoft-Confirms-IE9-Wont-Come-to-XP/">admitted that the new browser won't be XP-compatible</a> when it launches. This has created a small tempest of protest from those users still using XP, but this is less of an arbitrary decision than some appear to think. It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP. Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>MojoKid writes " As it turns out , news this week is that the same features that made IE9 's hardware-acceleration possible probably are n't compatible with Windows XP .
Microsoft initially dodged giving a straight answer to the question of XP support but has since admitted that the new browser wo n't be XP-compatible when it launches .
This has created a small tempest of protest from those users still using XP , but this is less of an arbitrary decision than some appear to think .
It 's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP .
Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MojoKid writes "As it turns out, news this week is that the same features that made IE9's hardware-acceleration possible probably aren't compatible with Windows XP.
Microsoft initially dodged giving a straight answer to the question of XP support but has since admitted that the new browser won't be XP-compatible when it launches.
This has created a small tempest of protest from those users still using XP, but this is less of an arbitrary decision than some appear to think.
It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP.
Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680</id>
	<title>Microsoft</title>
	<author>TyFoN</author>
	<datestamp>1269090660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's funny that Microsoft are the only ones that are not able to make XP compatible software (DX10 and IE9)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's funny that Microsoft are the only ones that are not able to make XP compatible software ( DX10 and IE9 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's funny that Microsoft are the only ones that are not able to make XP compatible software (DX10 and IE9)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549894</id>
	<title>Re:Win 3.1</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1269105120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What I find disturbing/entertaining is the use of "impossible" in regards to software when a solution is presented right after it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What I find disturbing/entertaining is the use of " impossible " in regards to software when a solution is presented right after it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I find disturbing/entertaining is the use of "impossible" in regards to software when a solution is presented right after it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548922</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269093960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ehmm...yes and no. The next major Firefox version will work on XP but will not support hardware acceleration. Just as IE9 and for exactly the same reason it will only support Windows hardware acceleration on Vista and Win7 because XP lacks Direct2D.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ehmm...yes and no .
The next major Firefox version will work on XP but will not support hardware acceleration .
Just as IE9 and for exactly the same reason it will only support Windows hardware acceleration on Vista and Win7 because XP lacks Direct2D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ehmm...yes and no.
The next major Firefox version will work on XP but will not support hardware acceleration.
Just as IE9 and for exactly the same reason it will only support Windows hardware acceleration on Vista and Win7 because XP lacks Direct2D.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548734</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269091560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For that matter Windows 2000 won't get IE9, and didn't get IE8, though it's extended support doesn't end until mid this year.</p><p>I could see people being mad if Vista weren't getting IE9 or something, or if XP wasn't getting security patched. If MS had a policy of "As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one," that would be reason to complain. As it stands, they support their OSes for a long, long time. You get at least a decade of total support, which is quite a lot.</p></div><p>Windows 2000, which was supersceeded in 2003 by server2K3  <b>still</b> gets patches for IE 5.01 and IE6. Windows 2000's market share is small, and of that, who would actually use IE 5.01?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter Windows 2000 wo n't get IE9 , and did n't get IE8 , though it 's extended support does n't end until mid this year.I could see people being mad if Vista were n't getting IE9 or something , or if XP was n't getting security patched .
If MS had a policy of " As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one , " that would be reason to complain .
As it stands , they support their OSes for a long , long time .
You get at least a decade of total support , which is quite a lot.Windows 2000 , which was supersceeded in 2003 by server2K3 still gets patches for IE 5.01 and IE6 .
Windows 2000 's market share is small , and of that , who would actually use IE 5.01 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter Windows 2000 won't get IE9, and didn't get IE8, though it's extended support doesn't end until mid this year.I could see people being mad if Vista weren't getting IE9 or something, or if XP wasn't getting security patched.
If MS had a policy of "As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one," that would be reason to complain.
As it stands, they support their OSes for a long, long time.
You get at least a decade of total support, which is quite a lot.Windows 2000, which was supersceeded in 2003 by server2K3  still gets patches for IE 5.01 and IE6.
Windows 2000's market share is small, and of that, who would actually use IE 5.01?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548694</id>
	<title>Not a problem</title>
	<author>gweihir</author>
	<datestamp>1269090900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Opera and Firefox as backup for those very few pages not standard conform enough to work with Opera. I have not had a page that does not work with either but works with IE in ages.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Opera and Firefox as backup for those very few pages not standard conform enough to work with Opera .
I have not had a page that does not work with either but works with IE in ages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Opera and Firefox as backup for those very few pages not standard conform enough to work with Opera.
I have not had a page that does not work with either but works with IE in ages.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548634</id>
	<title>Good.</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1269090180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes XP just worked.  It still works better than win 7 in my regard.</p><p>However XP + ie is basically an invitation to be hacked / malwared / infected / ripped off.</p><p>ie6 is still around basically because xp is.  Any one who does any sort of web stuff hates ie6.  ie6 is point blank holding back the web.  Of course ie 7-8 also have a truck load of issues.  But it's the combination of ie + xp that is the real killer.</p><p>Lets hope win7 takes hold with ie9 and relegates the other lesser M$ combinations to the bit bucket.</p><p>( Of course I say all this and I personally only use FF and Linux )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes XP just worked .
It still works better than win 7 in my regard.However XP + ie is basically an invitation to be hacked / malwared / infected / ripped off.ie6 is still around basically because xp is .
Any one who does any sort of web stuff hates ie6 .
ie6 is point blank holding back the web .
Of course ie 7-8 also have a truck load of issues .
But it 's the combination of ie + xp that is the real killer.Lets hope win7 takes hold with ie9 and relegates the other lesser M $ combinations to the bit bucket .
( Of course I say all this and I personally only use FF and Linux )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes XP just worked.
It still works better than win 7 in my regard.However XP + ie is basically an invitation to be hacked / malwared / infected / ripped off.ie6 is still around basically because xp is.
Any one who does any sort of web stuff hates ie6.
ie6 is point blank holding back the web.
Of course ie 7-8 also have a truck load of issues.
But it's the combination of ie + xp that is the real killer.Lets hope win7 takes hold with ie9 and relegates the other lesser M$ combinations to the bit bucket.
( Of course I say all this and I personally only use FF and Linux )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549616</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>linebackn</author>
	<datestamp>1269101640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It is unreasonable to expect a vendor to continue to support their old products forever.</i>
<br> <br>
Programmers must draw a line somewhere, how much of an OS do they want to re-implement in their application? Sometimes such re-implement has to be done, but other times it is just too much work and maintenance. It is all about balance.
<br> <br>
On a related note Mozilla just released their final update to SeaMonkey 1.1 (1.1.19). Here is a screen shot of it running on <a href="http://toastytech.com/guis/misc351smok2.png" title="toastytech.com">NT 3.51!</a> [toastytech.com] Very impressive work keeping it running on a 15-year old OS for this long.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is unreasonable to expect a vendor to continue to support their old products forever .
Programmers must draw a line somewhere , how much of an OS do they want to re-implement in their application ?
Sometimes such re-implement has to be done , but other times it is just too much work and maintenance .
It is all about balance .
On a related note Mozilla just released their final update to SeaMonkey 1.1 ( 1.1.19 ) .
Here is a screen shot of it running on NT 3.51 !
[ toastytech.com ] Very impressive work keeping it running on a 15-year old OS for this long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is unreasonable to expect a vendor to continue to support their old products forever.
Programmers must draw a line somewhere, how much of an OS do they want to re-implement in their application?
Sometimes such re-implement has to be done, but other times it is just too much work and maintenance.
It is all about balance.
On a related note Mozilla just released their final update to SeaMonkey 1.1 (1.1.19).
Here is a screen shot of it running on NT 3.51!
[toastytech.com] Very impressive work keeping it running on a 15-year old OS for this long.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551772</id>
	<title>Re:Bogon overload</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"They don't make money off of them so they have no interest in spending money on them."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "what is really happening is that MS was abandoning its real customer base"</p><p>Question:  How are Windows XP users who don't spend money Microsoft's customer base?</p><p>Answer:  They DO spend money and upgrade to Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" They do n't make money off of them so they have no interest in spending money on them .
" ... " what is really happening is that MS was abandoning its real customer base " Question : How are Windows XP users who do n't spend money Microsoft 's customer base ? Answer : They DO spend money and upgrade to Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"They don't make money off of them so they have no interest in spending money on them.
" ... "what is really happening is that MS was abandoning its real customer base"Question:  How are Windows XP users who don't spend money Microsoft's customer base?Answer:  They DO spend money and upgrade to Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550006</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551254</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen many stupid things in my life but...</title>
	<author>Tromad</author>
	<datestamp>1269115860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Impossible as in "no one will ever put the time and money into this so it might as well not even exist". Not technically impossible but feasibly impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Impossible as in " no one will ever put the time and money into this so it might as well not even exist " .
Not technically impossible but feasibly impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Impossible as in "no one will ever put the time and money into this so it might as well not even exist".
Not technically impossible but feasibly impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550278</id>
	<title>Sunset? They still sell it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269108540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't you think that MS has to stop selling XP before they stop supporting it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't you think that MS has to stop selling XP before they stop supporting it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't you think that MS has to stop selling XP before they stop supporting it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548602</id>
	<title>recompile</title>
	<author>ascari</author>
	<datestamp>1269089640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds like a no-problem to me, you just get the source code and recompile it on XP. What was that? Oh...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a no-problem to me , you just get the source code and recompile it on XP .
What was that ?
Oh.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a no-problem to me, you just get the source code and recompile it on XP.
What was that?
Oh...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548666</id>
	<title>Breaking News!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269090540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upcoming new web browser won't support 8-year-old operating system! Details at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upcoming new web browser wo n't support 8-year-old operating system !
Details at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upcoming new web browser won't support 8-year-old operating system!
Details at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549252</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why every web developer should help their sites users to upgrade to more recent browsers.<br>There are several sites that promote web browser variation and helping people to get what they need, all pretty much a search away.<br>The less people using these outdated browsers, the better.<br>And the less people using IE, the more happy we are, not trying to rip whatever hair we have left in trying to get IE to render some box correctly.</p><p>Of course, every web developer should also take on-board that they should allow access to the websites resources as best as possible via alternative means, such as text browsing mode with links to resources, and emulating client-side JavaScript from server side if required.<br>While the number of users that use old browsers are getting smaller each year, making your site accessible from a text browser is not only good for the sake of planning out your content intelligently, it also makes it easier for your site to be crawled by search engines and accessibility programs for those with less able senses.<br>And if you do it correctly, you could also end up saving some extra bytes of bandwidth per page. (in some cases, double and even triple digits)<br>All of those unneeded bytes add up to huge numbers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why every web developer should help their sites users to upgrade to more recent browsers.There are several sites that promote web browser variation and helping people to get what they need , all pretty much a search away.The less people using these outdated browsers , the better.And the less people using IE , the more happy we are , not trying to rip whatever hair we have left in trying to get IE to render some box correctly.Of course , every web developer should also take on-board that they should allow access to the websites resources as best as possible via alternative means , such as text browsing mode with links to resources , and emulating client-side JavaScript from server side if required.While the number of users that use old browsers are getting smaller each year , making your site accessible from a text browser is not only good for the sake of planning out your content intelligently , it also makes it easier for your site to be crawled by search engines and accessibility programs for those with less able senses.And if you do it correctly , you could also end up saving some extra bytes of bandwidth per page .
( in some cases , double and even triple digits ) All of those unneeded bytes add up to huge numbers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why every web developer should help their sites users to upgrade to more recent browsers.There are several sites that promote web browser variation and helping people to get what they need, all pretty much a search away.The less people using these outdated browsers, the better.And the less people using IE, the more happy we are, not trying to rip whatever hair we have left in trying to get IE to render some box correctly.Of course, every web developer should also take on-board that they should allow access to the websites resources as best as possible via alternative means, such as text browsing mode with links to resources, and emulating client-side JavaScript from server side if required.While the number of users that use old browsers are getting smaller each year, making your site accessible from a text browser is not only good for the sake of planning out your content intelligently, it also makes it easier for your site to be crawled by search engines and accessibility programs for those with less able senses.And if you do it correctly, you could also end up saving some extra bytes of bandwidth per page.
(in some cases, double and even triple digits)All of those unneeded bytes add up to huge numbers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1269089880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8 probably also have another browser. Very few corporate intranets have mandated XP/IE8. I foresee many developers having to support mainly IE6/XP and Firefox* in the near future, and maybe a quickie test on IE7 and IE8 if you have resources to do so.</p><p>* The idea is that if you wrote a reasonably standards-based site and tested with Firefox, it will work well in Chrome/Safari/Opera. Feel free to test with any other standards-based browser instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8 probably also have another browser .
Very few corporate intranets have mandated XP/IE8 .
I foresee many developers having to support mainly IE6/XP and Firefox * in the near future , and maybe a quickie test on IE7 and IE8 if you have resources to do so .
* The idea is that if you wrote a reasonably standards-based site and tested with Firefox , it will work well in Chrome/Safari/Opera .
Feel free to test with any other standards-based browser instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8 probably also have another browser.
Very few corporate intranets have mandated XP/IE8.
I foresee many developers having to support mainly IE6/XP and Firefox* in the near future, and maybe a quickie test on IE7 and IE8 if you have resources to do so.
* The idea is that if you wrote a reasonably standards-based site and tested with Firefox, it will work well in Chrome/Safari/Opera.
Feel free to test with any other standards-based browser instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31562244</id>
	<title>Shit...</title>
	<author>Puppet Master</author>
	<datestamp>1269180840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean I have to go back to <a href="http://ie6funeral.com/" title="ie6funeral.com">IE6</a> [ie6funeral.com]??</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean I have to go back to IE6 [ ie6funeral.com ] ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean I have to go back to IE6 [ie6funeral.com]?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549752</id>
	<title>MOD UP PLEASE!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I idea that Microsoft is talking about ending support for the only stable operating system they currently have out is ludicrous.</p></div><p>  ---THIS!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I idea that Microsoft is talking about ending support for the only stable operating system they currently have out is ludicrous .
---THIS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I idea that Microsoft is talking about ending support for the only stable operating system they currently have out is ludicrous.
---THIS!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550916</id>
	<title>Not possible?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269113520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep reading about 'not possible'.  I read about 'not possible' when I heard about 'unpossible to unbundle da internet exploder from da winders 98'.  I read about it, saw it for the lie it was, (even though it was declared with hand on bible, sworn before a federal judge), and I shook my head.  Not possible.  NOT!  I am familiar with computers.  I have read and understood computery kinds of terms like Turing complete, and know what they mean.  I know its only a theory, like relativity.  Some people think a theory is a guess, and that it might be right or wrong, and the jury is still out.  But most scientific theories are hard proven facts, proven correct billions of times per day, for millions of days.  Turing completeness is a theory that was reviewed by Turings peers at Cambridge, then other guys like Al Einstein, John Von Neumann, Bertrand Russell, Neils Bohr, Richard Feynman, and one or two other pretty smart guys.  Not a single peep of objection.  Its been proven oh, one or two trillion times since he wrote his little theory.  Its probably pretty correct.  Now the 'not possible to' stuff flies in the face of this 'Turing Complete' stuff.  It might be hard to do, or the marketing department might say its bad for business, but not possible?  Thats a lie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep reading about 'not possible' .
I read about 'not possible ' when I heard about 'unpossible to unbundle da internet exploder from da winders 98' .
I read about it , saw it for the lie it was , ( even though it was declared with hand on bible , sworn before a federal judge ) , and I shook my head .
Not possible .
NOT ! I am familiar with computers .
I have read and understood computery kinds of terms like Turing complete , and know what they mean .
I know its only a theory , like relativity .
Some people think a theory is a guess , and that it might be right or wrong , and the jury is still out .
But most scientific theories are hard proven facts , proven correct billions of times per day , for millions of days .
Turing completeness is a theory that was reviewed by Turings peers at Cambridge , then other guys like Al Einstein , John Von Neumann , Bertrand Russell , Neils Bohr , Richard Feynman , and one or two other pretty smart guys .
Not a single peep of objection .
Its been proven oh , one or two trillion times since he wrote his little theory .
Its probably pretty correct .
Now the 'not possible to ' stuff flies in the face of this 'Turing Complete ' stuff .
It might be hard to do , or the marketing department might say its bad for business , but not possible ?
Thats a lie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep reading about 'not possible'.
I read about 'not possible' when I heard about 'unpossible to unbundle da internet exploder from da winders 98'.
I read about it, saw it for the lie it was, (even though it was declared with hand on bible, sworn before a federal judge), and I shook my head.
Not possible.
NOT!  I am familiar with computers.
I have read and understood computery kinds of terms like Turing complete, and know what they mean.
I know its only a theory, like relativity.
Some people think a theory is a guess, and that it might be right or wrong, and the jury is still out.
But most scientific theories are hard proven facts, proven correct billions of times per day, for millions of days.
Turing completeness is a theory that was reviewed by Turings peers at Cambridge, then other guys like Al Einstein, John Von Neumann, Bertrand Russell, Neils Bohr, Richard Feynman, and one or two other pretty smart guys.
Not a single peep of objection.
Its been proven oh, one or two trillion times since he wrote his little theory.
Its probably pretty correct.
Now the 'not possible to' stuff flies in the face of this 'Turing Complete' stuff.
It might be hard to do, or the marketing department might say its bad for business, but not possible?
Thats a lie.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550514</id>
	<title>hmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269110580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>was there ever any version of internet explorer which was fully supported by the underlying os? i don't think so! yeah! bash it! bash it hard!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>was there ever any version of internet explorer which was fully supported by the underlying os ?
i do n't think so !
yeah ! bash it !
bash it hard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was there ever any version of internet explorer which was fully supported by the underlying os?
i don't think so!
yeah! bash it!
bash it hard!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548668</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269090600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know, right?  Who would expect that a company wouldn't perpetually support their products until the end of time?  Madness!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , right ?
Who would expect that a company would n't perpetually support their products until the end of time ?
Madness !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, right?
Who would expect that a company wouldn't perpetually support their products until the end of time?
Madness!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551478</id>
	<title>The other way around</title>
	<author>chenjeru</author>
	<datestamp>1269117660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't it be said the XP won't support IE9? Or that IE9 is not supported on XP? An app doesn't support an OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't it be said the XP wo n't support IE9 ?
Or that IE9 is not supported on XP ?
An app does n't support an OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't it be said the XP won't support IE9?
Or that IE9 is not supported on XP?
An app doesn't support an OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551486</id>
	<title>And the reason is ...</title>
	<author>AftanGustur</author>
	<datestamp>1269117720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Microsoft Palladium" never actually left the building.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft Palladium " never actually left the building .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft Palladium" never actually left the building.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</id>
	<title>People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269090480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is unreasonable to expect a vendor to continue to support their old products forever. MS has quite a long support cycle, and it is a pretty predictable one too. XP has now entered what one might call "sunset" support. They still patch it, their answer to security issues isn't "Just upgrade to a new one," but they are done adding features. It is the final version, feature wise. That ended at the end of 2009, when general support for XP was terminated. We are now under extended support, the "sunset support", until 2014.</p><p>Windows 7 is of course being upgraded and supported as it is new. General support is scheduled to end for it in 2015, and extended support in 2020, though they've been known to extend the support dates before.</p><p>That is not bad at all. XP was released in 2001. It got nearly a decade of mainstream support, and it going to have 13 years in total support. Compare that to Ubutnu LTS or OS-X and you find it is extremely long. Solaris is one of the few OSes that has support cycles of that length.</p><p>So people need to STFU. No, XP is NOT going to get anymore new features. Deal with it. If you wish to continue using XP, then you can do so without those features. If not, upgrade to a newer OS.</p><p>This isn't the first new feature XP hasn't gotten either. DirectX 10 and up are Vista and 7 only, the DWM is Vista and 7 only and so on. XP is an old OS. It's a good one, but it is an old one. They are not going to offer new stuff for it indefinitely.</p><p>For that matter Windows 2000 won't get IE9, and didn't get IE8, though it's extended support doesn't end until mid this year.</p><p>I could see people being mad if Vista weren't getting IE9 or something, or if XP wasn't getting security patched. If MS had a policy of "As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one," that would be reason to complain. As it stands, they support their OSes for a long, long time. You get at least a decade of total support, which is quite a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is unreasonable to expect a vendor to continue to support their old products forever .
MS has quite a long support cycle , and it is a pretty predictable one too .
XP has now entered what one might call " sunset " support .
They still patch it , their answer to security issues is n't " Just upgrade to a new one , " but they are done adding features .
It is the final version , feature wise .
That ended at the end of 2009 , when general support for XP was terminated .
We are now under extended support , the " sunset support " , until 2014.Windows 7 is of course being upgraded and supported as it is new .
General support is scheduled to end for it in 2015 , and extended support in 2020 , though they 've been known to extend the support dates before.That is not bad at all .
XP was released in 2001 .
It got nearly a decade of mainstream support , and it going to have 13 years in total support .
Compare that to Ubutnu LTS or OS-X and you find it is extremely long .
Solaris is one of the few OSes that has support cycles of that length.So people need to STFU .
No , XP is NOT going to get anymore new features .
Deal with it .
If you wish to continue using XP , then you can do so without those features .
If not , upgrade to a newer OS.This is n't the first new feature XP has n't gotten either .
DirectX 10 and up are Vista and 7 only , the DWM is Vista and 7 only and so on .
XP is an old OS .
It 's a good one , but it is an old one .
They are not going to offer new stuff for it indefinitely.For that matter Windows 2000 wo n't get IE9 , and did n't get IE8 , though it 's extended support does n't end until mid this year.I could see people being mad if Vista were n't getting IE9 or something , or if XP was n't getting security patched .
If MS had a policy of " As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one , " that would be reason to complain .
As it stands , they support their OSes for a long , long time .
You get at least a decade of total support , which is quite a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is unreasonable to expect a vendor to continue to support their old products forever.
MS has quite a long support cycle, and it is a pretty predictable one too.
XP has now entered what one might call "sunset" support.
They still patch it, their answer to security issues isn't "Just upgrade to a new one," but they are done adding features.
It is the final version, feature wise.
That ended at the end of 2009, when general support for XP was terminated.
We are now under extended support, the "sunset support", until 2014.Windows 7 is of course being upgraded and supported as it is new.
General support is scheduled to end for it in 2015, and extended support in 2020, though they've been known to extend the support dates before.That is not bad at all.
XP was released in 2001.
It got nearly a decade of mainstream support, and it going to have 13 years in total support.
Compare that to Ubutnu LTS or OS-X and you find it is extremely long.
Solaris is one of the few OSes that has support cycles of that length.So people need to STFU.
No, XP is NOT going to get anymore new features.
Deal with it.
If you wish to continue using XP, then you can do so without those features.
If not, upgrade to a newer OS.This isn't the first new feature XP hasn't gotten either.
DirectX 10 and up are Vista and 7 only, the DWM is Vista and 7 only and so on.
XP is an old OS.
It's a good one, but it is an old one.
They are not going to offer new stuff for it indefinitely.For that matter Windows 2000 won't get IE9, and didn't get IE8, though it's extended support doesn't end until mid this year.I could see people being mad if Vista weren't getting IE9 or something, or if XP wasn't getting security patched.
If MS had a policy of "As soon as a new Windows comes out we completely drop the old one," that would be reason to complain.
As it stands, they support their OSes for a long, long time.
You get at least a decade of total support, which is quite a lot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548570</id>
	<title>GOOD !!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time to move away from the crap.  IE that is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time to move away from the crap .
IE that is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time to move away from the crap.
IE that is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550022</id>
	<title>LOVE it</title>
	<author>jav1231</author>
	<datestamp>1269106440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First IE9 taps your GPU to up it's speed. That negates the need to be lean and mean and continues the long-standing tradition at Microsoft of let the browser get fatter, we'll just use more resources. Now it's not going to support it's own OS that has the most market share. Frankly, the more stupid the ideas from Microsoft the more likely people will abandon the crack dealer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First IE9 taps your GPU to up it 's speed .
That negates the need to be lean and mean and continues the long-standing tradition at Microsoft of let the browser get fatter , we 'll just use more resources .
Now it 's not going to support it 's own OS that has the most market share .
Frankly , the more stupid the ideas from Microsoft the more likely people will abandon the crack dealer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First IE9 taps your GPU to up it's speed.
That negates the need to be lean and mean and continues the long-standing tradition at Microsoft of let the browser get fatter, we'll just use more resources.
Now it's not going to support it's own OS that has the most market share.
Frankly, the more stupid the ideas from Microsoft the more likely people will abandon the crack dealer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549318</id>
	<title>Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if it will support HTML and CSS standards.  That would be novel for IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if it will support HTML and CSS standards .
That would be novel for IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if it will support HTML and CSS standards.
That would be novel for IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549110</id>
	<title>Why still use XP?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269095940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand why people who would care about what browser they use would still be using XP. XP was released almost 9 years ago for god's sake. You cant expect everyone to cater to your outdated operating system! XP is so old it is in danger of becoming retro.
If you disagree, rollerblade on over here and disco me to death.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand why people who would care about what browser they use would still be using XP .
XP was released almost 9 years ago for god 's sake .
You cant expect everyone to cater to your outdated operating system !
XP is so old it is in danger of becoming retro .
If you disagree , rollerblade on over here and disco me to death .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand why people who would care about what browser they use would still be using XP.
XP was released almost 9 years ago for god's sake.
You cant expect everyone to cater to your outdated operating system!
XP is so old it is in danger of becoming retro.
If you disagree, rollerblade on over here and disco me to death.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549358</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When Ars Technica posted this news several days ago, the comments were mostly along the same lines as this one. The thread then became an "XP vs Vista/7" pissing match.</p><p>I think everyone is missing the issue. <b>It's not about XP, it's about Internet Explorer.</b> </p><p>The ~170,000 visitors a month web site that I work for has an XP userbase of 53\%. I doubt that number will dip below 50\% by the time IE 9 is coming out. Another commenter on the Ars thread found numbers for XP that were around 65\%. </p><p>So for me, the real question is: in the midst of intense competition from Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera, why would the IE team choose to create a browser that no more than 50\% of users can install?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When Ars Technica posted this news several days ago , the comments were mostly along the same lines as this one .
The thread then became an " XP vs Vista/7 " pissing match.I think everyone is missing the issue .
It 's not about XP , it 's about Internet Explorer .
The ~ 170,000 visitors a month web site that I work for has an XP userbase of 53 \ % .
I doubt that number will dip below 50 \ % by the time IE 9 is coming out .
Another commenter on the Ars thread found numbers for XP that were around 65 \ % .
So for me , the real question is : in the midst of intense competition from Firefox , Safari , Chrome and Opera , why would the IE team choose to create a browser that no more than 50 \ % of users can install ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When Ars Technica posted this news several days ago, the comments were mostly along the same lines as this one.
The thread then became an "XP vs Vista/7" pissing match.I think everyone is missing the issue.
It's not about XP, it's about Internet Explorer.
The ~170,000 visitors a month web site that I work for has an XP userbase of 53\%.
I doubt that number will dip below 50\% by the time IE 9 is coming out.
Another commenter on the Ars thread found numbers for XP that were around 65\%.
So for me, the real question is: in the midst of intense competition from Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera, why would the IE team choose to create a browser that no more than 50\% of users can install?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548718</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>TyFoN</author>
	<datestamp>1269091260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the main reason people are bitching about it is because while you need to upgrade the others more often, they are free to upgrade (except for OS X, but the mac users are already used to shovel money in apple's direction).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the main reason people are bitching about it is because while you need to upgrade the others more often , they are free to upgrade ( except for OS X , but the mac users are already used to shovel money in apple 's direction ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the main reason people are bitching about it is because while you need to upgrade the others more often, they are free to upgrade (except for OS X, but the mac users are already used to shovel money in apple's direction).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551854</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269077640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows 2000 was far better than XP</p></div><p>You do realize that XP was just a prettied up consumerized version of Win2k right?  They used the same kernel, and most of the same code base.  XP saw a number of improvements with SP1, SP2, and SP3 that Win2k never got.</p><p>I find it extremely difficult to say Win2k is better than XP without completely ignoring Win2k first.  You have to imagine something that never existed in the first place to make that statement, because if you took pre-sp1 XP and turned off the eye-candy you essentially had Win2k.  XP-SP3 is vastly improved over the original XP, they are almost different OS's.</p><p>That said, I agree that Win7 is significantly better than XP; I use XP, Vista, and Win7 and Win7 is the best hands down.  I'm actually thinking of paying for a copy of 7 to upgrade my Vista laptop - the first time I will have bought a retail copy of an OS since Win98 (that's over a decade ago, for those who suck at counting).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 2000 was far better than XPYou do realize that XP was just a prettied up consumerized version of Win2k right ?
They used the same kernel , and most of the same code base .
XP saw a number of improvements with SP1 , SP2 , and SP3 that Win2k never got.I find it extremely difficult to say Win2k is better than XP without completely ignoring Win2k first .
You have to imagine something that never existed in the first place to make that statement , because if you took pre-sp1 XP and turned off the eye-candy you essentially had Win2k .
XP-SP3 is vastly improved over the original XP , they are almost different OS 's.That said , I agree that Win7 is significantly better than XP ; I use XP , Vista , and Win7 and Win7 is the best hands down .
I 'm actually thinking of paying for a copy of 7 to upgrade my Vista laptop - the first time I will have bought a retail copy of an OS since Win98 ( that 's over a decade ago , for those who suck at counting ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 2000 was far better than XPYou do realize that XP was just a prettied up consumerized version of Win2k right?
They used the same kernel, and most of the same code base.
XP saw a number of improvements with SP1, SP2, and SP3 that Win2k never got.I find it extremely difficult to say Win2k is better than XP without completely ignoring Win2k first.
You have to imagine something that never existed in the first place to make that statement, because if you took pre-sp1 XP and turned off the eye-candy you essentially had Win2k.
XP-SP3 is vastly improved over the original XP, they are almost different OS's.That said, I agree that Win7 is significantly better than XP; I use XP, Vista, and Win7 and Win7 is the best hands down.
I'm actually thinking of paying for a copy of 7 to upgrade my Vista laptop - the first time I will have bought a retail copy of an OS since Win98 (that's over a decade ago, for those who suck at counting).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549804</id>
	<title>Re:Good.</title>
	<author>blahbooboo</author>
	<datestamp>1269103980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes XP just worked.  It still works better than win 7 in my regard.</p></div><p>Don't agree.  XP was great in its day 10 years ago (or 5), but people need to let it go. Fact is XP wasn't ever that great, Windows 2000 was far better than XP.  Second, "Xp just worked" is hilarious.  My goodness, the amount of crap I deal with in XP far exceeds how it is with Windows 7.  When I am forced to use XP now that I am used to Windows 7 I can't understand why anyone would voluntarily keep using XP unless Vista were the only option (hehe).  Windows 7 has restored my faith that MS can do something right. </p><p>

XP is ANCIENT software and does things soooo much worse than 7.  I haven't had a single problem with hardware or software in 7, in XP it's download and driver install hell.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes XP just worked .
It still works better than win 7 in my regard.Do n't agree .
XP was great in its day 10 years ago ( or 5 ) , but people need to let it go .
Fact is XP was n't ever that great , Windows 2000 was far better than XP .
Second , " Xp just worked " is hilarious .
My goodness , the amount of crap I deal with in XP far exceeds how it is with Windows 7 .
When I am forced to use XP now that I am used to Windows 7 I ca n't understand why anyone would voluntarily keep using XP unless Vista were the only option ( hehe ) .
Windows 7 has restored my faith that MS can do something right .
XP is ANCIENT software and does things soooo much worse than 7 .
I have n't had a single problem with hardware or software in 7 , in XP it 's download and driver install hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes XP just worked.
It still works better than win 7 in my regard.Don't agree.
XP was great in its day 10 years ago (or 5), but people need to let it go.
Fact is XP wasn't ever that great, Windows 2000 was far better than XP.
Second, "Xp just worked" is hilarious.
My goodness, the amount of crap I deal with in XP far exceeds how it is with Windows 7.
When I am forced to use XP now that I am used to Windows 7 I can't understand why anyone would voluntarily keep using XP unless Vista were the only option (hehe).
Windows 7 has restored my faith that MS can do something right.
XP is ANCIENT software and does things soooo much worse than 7.
I haven't had a single problem with hardware or software in 7, in XP it's download and driver install hell.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549958</id>
	<title>It's not impossible</title>
	<author>Auckerman</author>
	<datestamp>1269105840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To say it's "impossible" is being dishonest.  All display rendering in OS X is done by tasks that were offset by the graphics card.   It's a native OS X feature that speeds up all applications.  Firefox runs just fine on OS X and XP.</p><p>Microsoft either doesn't know to or is unwilling to write direct X in a way that creates minimum work for developers to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To say it 's " impossible " is being dishonest .
All display rendering in OS X is done by tasks that were offset by the graphics card .
It 's a native OS X feature that speeds up all applications .
Firefox runs just fine on OS X and XP.Microsoft either does n't know to or is unwilling to write direct X in a way that creates minimum work for developers to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To say it's "impossible" is being dishonest.
All display rendering in OS X is done by tasks that were offset by the graphics card.
It's a native OS X feature that speeds up all applications.
Firefox runs just fine on OS X and XP.Microsoft either doesn't know to or is unwilling to write direct X in a way that creates minimum work for developers to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594</id>
	<title>I've seen many stupid things in my life but...</title>
	<author>tkjtkj</author>
	<datestamp>1269101280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>but this takes the cake!
I refer to:

" It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP. Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode."

I mean, to say a thing is "impossible" and then, in the same breath, reveal not one but TWO methods of doing the thing is as funny as it is absurd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>but this takes the cake !
I refer to : " It 's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP .
Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode .
" I mean , to say a thing is " impossible " and then , in the same breath , reveal not one but TWO methods of doing the thing is as funny as it is absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but this takes the cake!
I refer to:

" It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP.
Microsoft would have to either develop a workaround from scratch or create a CPU-driven 'software mode.
"

I mean, to say a thing is "impossible" and then, in the same breath, reveal not one but TWO methods of doing the thing is as funny as it is absurd.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550484</id>
	<title>Re:"hardware acceleration"?</title>
	<author>game kid</author>
	<datestamp>1269110280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One Windows 7 feature/API/interface/<em>whatever</em> Microsoft has been pushing these days is Direct2D and DirectWrite.  (That's <em>two</em>, I know; just play along.)  Basically a way to draw vector shapes and smooth text and shit with a DirectX-based COM interface.  <a href="http://www.basschouten.com/blog1.php/2009/10/27/font-rendering-gdi-versus-directwrite" title="basschouten.com">The text is a bit different from the usual ClearType, because it smooths vertically as well as horizontally.</a> [basschouten.com] </p><p> <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/11/18/an-early-look-at-ie9-for-developers.aspx" title="msdn.com">Microsoft has said they'll use the "Direct"s in IE9</a> [msdn.com]* and that <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2010/01/05/microsoft-joins-w3c-svg-working-group.aspx" title="msdn.com">they've joined the SVG working group</a> [msdn.com], and have already done vector stuff with VML, so it's clear they want to use the Directs to implement (some subset of) SVG.  They got Acid2 working in IE8, so they may as well punch in the SVG stuff used in Acid3; and if they can make a nice, fast GPU-land engine that renders the hypertext <em>and</em> the shapes, IE9 could actually be nice.  IE8 can still be slow with pages, such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured\_article\_candidates" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia's often-long list of featured article candidates</a> [wikipedia.org] (though I've tried it now and it doesn't seem as horrible as I remember...hmm), so the GPU stuff may help.</p><p>*One of the comments there reads, "instead of focusing on things like: Direct2D and DirectWrite, please focus on better STANDARDS SUPPORT!"  I think, and hope, that bort is missing the point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One Windows 7 feature/API/interface/whatever Microsoft has been pushing these days is Direct2D and DirectWrite .
( That 's two , I know ; just play along .
) Basically a way to draw vector shapes and smooth text and shit with a DirectX-based COM interface .
The text is a bit different from the usual ClearType , because it smooths vertically as well as horizontally .
[ basschouten.com ] Microsoft has said they 'll use the " Direct " s in IE9 [ msdn.com ] * and that they 've joined the SVG working group [ msdn.com ] , and have already done vector stuff with VML , so it 's clear they want to use the Directs to implement ( some subset of ) SVG .
They got Acid2 working in IE8 , so they may as well punch in the SVG stuff used in Acid3 ; and if they can make a nice , fast GPU-land engine that renders the hypertext and the shapes , IE9 could actually be nice .
IE8 can still be slow with pages , such as Wikipedia 's often-long list of featured article candidates [ wikipedia.org ] ( though I 've tried it now and it does n't seem as horrible as I remember...hmm ) , so the GPU stuff may help .
* One of the comments there reads , " instead of focusing on things like : Direct2D and DirectWrite , please focus on better STANDARDS SUPPORT !
" I think , and hope , that bort is missing the point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One Windows 7 feature/API/interface/whatever Microsoft has been pushing these days is Direct2D and DirectWrite.
(That's two, I know; just play along.
)  Basically a way to draw vector shapes and smooth text and shit with a DirectX-based COM interface.
The text is a bit different from the usual ClearType, because it smooths vertically as well as horizontally.
[basschouten.com]  Microsoft has said they'll use the "Direct"s in IE9 [msdn.com]* and that they've joined the SVG working group [msdn.com], and have already done vector stuff with VML, so it's clear they want to use the Directs to implement (some subset of) SVG.
They got Acid2 working in IE8, so they may as well punch in the SVG stuff used in Acid3; and if they can make a nice, fast GPU-land engine that renders the hypertext and the shapes, IE9 could actually be nice.
IE8 can still be slow with pages, such as Wikipedia's often-long list of featured article candidates [wikipedia.org] (though I've tried it now and it doesn't seem as horrible as I remember...hmm), so the GPU stuff may help.
*One of the comments there reads, "instead of focusing on things like: Direct2D and DirectWrite, please focus on better STANDARDS SUPPORT!
"  I think, and hope, that bort is missing the point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31558900</id>
	<title>Virtualize..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269199560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just run IE9+Win7 in a virtual machine on any OS.  Heck, run it under wine.  Start a WINE-for-WinXP project, to support Win7 APIs on WinXP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just run IE9 + Win7 in a virtual machine on any OS .
Heck , run it under wine .
Start a WINE-for-WinXP project , to support Win7 APIs on WinXP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just run IE9+Win7 in a virtual machine on any OS.
Heck, run it under wine.
Start a WINE-for-WinXP project, to support Win7 APIs on WinXP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549066</id>
	<title>Comparing XP and ubuntu support is flawed</title>
	<author>voss</author>
	<datestamp>1269095520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upgrading Ubuntu is like installing a service pack. It costs nothing and all you usually have to do is run the upgrade and restart.</p><p>You dont have to pay anything to upgrade from a three year old version of Ubuntu to the current version,<br>you just have to run the upgrade a couple times. Since new versions of ubuntu are free most users will upgrade reasonably<br>quickly(in one version counter tool 80\% of the users were using 9.10 )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrading Ubuntu is like installing a service pack .
It costs nothing and all you usually have to do is run the upgrade and restart.You dont have to pay anything to upgrade from a three year old version of Ubuntu to the current version,you just have to run the upgrade a couple times .
Since new versions of ubuntu are free most users will upgrade reasonablyquickly ( in one version counter tool 80 \ % of the users were using 9.10 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrading Ubuntu is like installing a service pack.
It costs nothing and all you usually have to do is run the upgrade and restart.You dont have to pay anything to upgrade from a three year old version of Ubuntu to the current version,you just have to run the upgrade a couple times.
Since new versions of ubuntu are free most users will upgrade reasonablyquickly(in one version counter tool 80\% of the users were using 9.10 )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550360</id>
	<title>Shills need to stop sucking MS dick</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269109080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So people need to STFU.</p> </div><p>Fuck you, shitbag shill. This all stems from the IT world anointing MS (the diarrhea spewing retard of the computer world) emperor back in the day. The IT world fucked computing in the ass with that, and we're probably 20 years behind where we could have been in terms of computer technology. Instead of better and faster we get ever larger piles of pig shit for operating systems with glitter and rhinestones sprinkled over them, so some people don't want to go that way. TOUGH SHIT, SHILL! We'll just use Firefox and Chrome and others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So people need to STFU .
Fuck you , shitbag shill .
This all stems from the IT world anointing MS ( the diarrhea spewing retard of the computer world ) emperor back in the day .
The IT world fucked computing in the ass with that , and we 're probably 20 years behind where we could have been in terms of computer technology .
Instead of better and faster we get ever larger piles of pig shit for operating systems with glitter and rhinestones sprinkled over them , so some people do n't want to go that way .
TOUGH SHIT , SHILL !
We 'll just use Firefox and Chrome and others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So people need to STFU.
Fuck you, shitbag shill.
This all stems from the IT world anointing MS (the diarrhea spewing retard of the computer world) emperor back in the day.
The IT world fucked computing in the ass with that, and we're probably 20 years behind where we could have been in terms of computer technology.
Instead of better and faster we get ever larger piles of pig shit for operating systems with glitter and rhinestones sprinkled over them, so some people don't want to go that way.
TOUGH SHIT, SHILL!
We'll just use Firefox and Chrome and others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549570</id>
	<title>its not all about direct2d</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1269101040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The IE9 benchmarks also show it having faster JS performance.  The JS engine could be backported to IE8 if they really wanted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The IE9 benchmarks also show it having faster JS performance .
The JS engine could be backported to IE8 if they really wanted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The IE9 benchmarks also show it having faster JS performance.
The JS engine could be backported to IE8 if they really wanted.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31552332</id>
	<title>2K also ...</title>
	<author>antdude</author>
	<datestamp>1269081360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... didn't get IE7, latest QuickTime versions, many other softwares, recent/newest hardwares, etc. Lots of stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... did n't get IE7 , latest QuickTime versions , many other softwares , recent/newest hardwares , etc .
Lots of stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... didn't get IE7, latest QuickTime versions, many other softwares, recent/newest hardwares, etc.
Lots of stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549992</id>
	<title>Re:XP sucks</title>
	<author>Auckerman</author>
	<datestamp>1269106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people see no need to pay more money to buy the most recent OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people see no need to pay more money to buy the most recent OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people see no need to pay more money to buy the most recent OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548726</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549178</id>
	<title>"hardware acceleration"?</title>
	<author>Orgasmatron</author>
	<datestamp>1269096840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardware acceleration in a browser?  What am I missing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware acceleration in a browser ?
What am I missing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware acceleration in a browser?
What am I missing?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550544</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1269110760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, we're still going to have IE6 on our hands. Of those XP users still using IE, the vast majority will continue using IE6, not IE8. The only way we'll be rid of IE6 is when XP dies. When XP dies, we'll probably not have another IE6 until Microsoft abandons IE for another decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , we 're still going to have IE6 on our hands .
Of those XP users still using IE , the vast majority will continue using IE6 , not IE8 .
The only way we 'll be rid of IE6 is when XP dies .
When XP dies , we 'll probably not have another IE6 until Microsoft abandons IE for another decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, we're still going to have IE6 on our hands.
Of those XP users still using IE, the vast majority will continue using IE6, not IE8.
The only way we'll be rid of IE6 is when XP dies.
When XP dies, we'll probably not have another IE6 until Microsoft abandons IE for another decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551140</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>kupekhaize</author>
	<datestamp>1269115260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I can certainly understand the need to deprecate older software and hardware, there are lots of times MS has been famous for claiming the need to do such things, when the sole purpose is to force people to give them more money.</p><p>Case in point: one you already mentioned; DX10. Microsoft claimed there was no way to get DX10 working on XP, and everyone *had* to upgrade to Vista to get it. Several games came out (Microsoft Flight Simulator X was a good example....) that required DX10 for advanced graphics and features, and Microsoft claimed there was no way to get them available in Windows XP.</p><p>However, it wasn't long before people bypassed the installer's OS checks, and got DX10 running on Windows XP. The end result? Flight Simulator had all of the extra graphics options that were "impossible" on Windows XP. First hit on Google ATM for "DX10 on Windows XP" gave me <a href="http://www.techmixer.com/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/" title="techmixer.com">this</a> [techmixer.com] page which does a good job of summing it up and giving graphic examples.</p><p>There's a reason we all stopped taking what Microsoft says at face value a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I can certainly understand the need to deprecate older software and hardware , there are lots of times MS has been famous for claiming the need to do such things , when the sole purpose is to force people to give them more money.Case in point : one you already mentioned ; DX10 .
Microsoft claimed there was no way to get DX10 working on XP , and everyone * had * to upgrade to Vista to get it .
Several games came out ( Microsoft Flight Simulator X was a good example.... ) that required DX10 for advanced graphics and features , and Microsoft claimed there was no way to get them available in Windows XP.However , it was n't long before people bypassed the installer 's OS checks , and got DX10 running on Windows XP .
The end result ?
Flight Simulator had all of the extra graphics options that were " impossible " on Windows XP .
First hit on Google ATM for " DX10 on Windows XP " gave me this [ techmixer.com ] page which does a good job of summing it up and giving graphic examples.There 's a reason we all stopped taking what Microsoft says at face value a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I can certainly understand the need to deprecate older software and hardware, there are lots of times MS has been famous for claiming the need to do such things, when the sole purpose is to force people to give them more money.Case in point: one you already mentioned; DX10.
Microsoft claimed there was no way to get DX10 working on XP, and everyone *had* to upgrade to Vista to get it.
Several games came out (Microsoft Flight Simulator X was a good example....) that required DX10 for advanced graphics and features, and Microsoft claimed there was no way to get them available in Windows XP.However, it wasn't long before people bypassed the installer's OS checks, and got DX10 running on Windows XP.
The end result?
Flight Simulator had all of the extra graphics options that were "impossible" on Windows XP.
First hit on Google ATM for "DX10 on Windows XP" gave me this [techmixer.com] page which does a good job of summing it up and giving graphic examples.There's a reason we all stopped taking what Microsoft says at face value a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549678</id>
	<title>Thats really annoying</title>
	<author>fartrader</author>
	<datestamp>1269102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE is simply the best firefox downloader around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is simply the best firefox downloader around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE is simply the best firefox downloader around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550150</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269107520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE 9 is not an operating system upgrade, it is an application. IE needs newer OS support in order to support HTML5?  I call bullshit on this.</p><p>This directly points out the problem with the Microsoft monopoly:  they can strategically maneuver one product line (don't provide an IE upgrade on XP) to drive customer behavior on another product line (need to buy a new OS, as well as all other user applications).</p><p>Consumers would be far better served if Microsoft were split into several parts:  the OS company and the applications company.  I understand why MS does not want to support changing the XP OS.  I don't understand why application updates cannot be made for the world's dominant and still perfectly usable desktop OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 9 is not an operating system upgrade , it is an application .
IE needs newer OS support in order to support HTML5 ?
I call bullshit on this.This directly points out the problem with the Microsoft monopoly : they can strategically maneuver one product line ( do n't provide an IE upgrade on XP ) to drive customer behavior on another product line ( need to buy a new OS , as well as all other user applications ) .Consumers would be far better served if Microsoft were split into several parts : the OS company and the applications company .
I understand why MS does not want to support changing the XP OS .
I do n't understand why application updates can not be made for the world 's dominant and still perfectly usable desktop OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 9 is not an operating system upgrade, it is an application.
IE needs newer OS support in order to support HTML5?
I call bullshit on this.This directly points out the problem with the Microsoft monopoly:  they can strategically maneuver one product line (don't provide an IE upgrade on XP) to drive customer behavior on another product line (need to buy a new OS, as well as all other user applications).Consumers would be far better served if Microsoft were split into several parts:  the OS company and the applications company.
I understand why MS does not want to support changing the XP OS.
I don't understand why application updates cannot be made for the world's dominant and still perfectly usable desktop OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550616</id>
	<title>Moving from XP to 7 is not the answer...it never..</title>
	<author>gooneybird</author>
	<datestamp>1269111240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>can be.<br> <br>
"Because of the wonderful things it does".. Seriously <br>
I use a a variety of operating systems at home and at my job (software developer). <br>
The reason that I am still supporting XP (and probably will for at least several more years<br>
is because of the recent "Windows 7 phone home every 6 months or I stop working" BS WAT patch<br>
When I inform customers of this they immediately say "XP for now, but make sure we can port to <br>
linux/Mac on the next upgrade cycle". IT departments/Companies that I talk to are not taking kindly <br>
to Win 7 because of WAT. I am currently working on 3 projects: one app with enhanced features(still on XP), 2 in an <br>
upgrade cycle and am supporting XP, Debian, RHEL. I suspect they will move to Linux early and only want XP as <br>
as backup, in case the rest of their system has a problem<br> <br>
For my personal use, I use various flavors of Linux for everything except for I keep one XP OS VM (Workstation)<br>
for running Adobe Photoshop CS2 for my photography hobby. Over the last 3 years I have migrated everything<br>
else to Linux, or I live without. I don't do on-line banking because of the IE/ActiveX bullshit that banks pull</htmltext>
<tokenext>can be .
" Because of the wonderful things it does " .. Seriously I use a a variety of operating systems at home and at my job ( software developer ) .
The reason that I am still supporting XP ( and probably will for at least several more years is because of the recent " Windows 7 phone home every 6 months or I stop working " BS WAT patch When I inform customers of this they immediately say " XP for now , but make sure we can port to linux/Mac on the next upgrade cycle " .
IT departments/Companies that I talk to are not taking kindly to Win 7 because of WAT .
I am currently working on 3 projects : one app with enhanced features ( still on XP ) , 2 in an upgrade cycle and am supporting XP , Debian , RHEL .
I suspect they will move to Linux early and only want XP as as backup , in case the rest of their system has a problem For my personal use , I use various flavors of Linux for everything except for I keep one XP OS VM ( Workstation ) for running Adobe Photoshop CS2 for my photography hobby .
Over the last 3 years I have migrated everything else to Linux , or I live without .
I do n't do on-line banking because of the IE/ActiveX bullshit that banks pull</tokentext>
<sentencetext>can be.
"Because of the wonderful things it does".. Seriously 
I use a a variety of operating systems at home and at my job (software developer).
The reason that I am still supporting XP (and probably will for at least several more years
is because of the recent "Windows 7 phone home every 6 months or I stop working" BS WAT patch
When I inform customers of this they immediately say "XP for now, but make sure we can port to 
linux/Mac on the next upgrade cycle".
IT departments/Companies that I talk to are not taking kindly 
to Win 7 because of WAT.
I am currently working on 3 projects: one app with enhanced features(still on XP), 2 in an 
upgrade cycle and am supporting XP, Debian, RHEL.
I suspect they will move to Linux early and only want XP as 
as backup, in case the rest of their system has a problem 
For my personal use, I use various flavors of Linux for everything except for I keep one XP OS VM (Workstation)
for running Adobe Photoshop CS2 for my photography hobby.
Over the last 3 years I have migrated everything
else to Linux, or I live without.
I don't do on-line banking because of the IE/ActiveX bullshit that banks pull</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549712</id>
	<title>let XP go.</title>
	<author>dAzED1</author>
	<datestamp>1269102600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know what you're gonna say...there was nothing usable until Windows 7, that's why you're using an operating system that was released nearly 10 years ago.</p><p>Bullshit.  There was Linux, OSX, and others.  You've had plenty of options.  Hanging on to that ancient crap, and expecting the vendor to still support it, is silly.</p><p>(just upset that he STILL can't use SNI because of idiotic XP users)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know what you 're gon na say...there was nothing usable until Windows 7 , that 's why you 're using an operating system that was released nearly 10 years ago.Bullshit .
There was Linux , OSX , and others .
You 've had plenty of options .
Hanging on to that ancient crap , and expecting the vendor to still support it , is silly .
( just upset that he STILL ca n't use SNI because of idiotic XP users )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know what you're gonna say...there was nothing usable until Windows 7, that's why you're using an operating system that was released nearly 10 years ago.Bullshit.
There was Linux, OSX, and others.
You've had plenty of options.
Hanging on to that ancient crap, and expecting the vendor to still support it, is silly.
(just upset that he STILL can't use SNI because of idiotic XP users)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551052</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1269114660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8 probably also have another browser."</p><p>How "savvy" do you have to be to follow MS's suggestion to upgrade to IE8 when it appears on your home page (which was never changed from msn.com)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8 probably also have another browser .
" How " savvy " do you have to be to follow MS 's suggestion to upgrade to IE8 when it appears on your home page ( which was never changed from msn.com ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8 probably also have another browser.
"How "savvy" do you have to be to follow MS's suggestion to upgrade to IE8 when it appears on your home page (which was never changed from msn.com)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549216</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269097260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Waddaya mean &ldquo;stuck&rdquo;. Those who are incompetent use whatever came/comes with their computer (IE on Vista/Win7), and the competent don&rsquo;t use IE, no matter what the OS is.<br>Except in Europe, where we have the browser ballot.</p><p>Oh, and don&rsquo;t bet on my sites caring if you got a browser with a buggy implementation of an outdated standard.<br>IE9 will be the first IE I&rsquo;m going to support again. But only if they adhere to the standard by the same means as other browsers.<br>(MS: That does not mean we&rsquo;re good. Your respect debt will just stop getting bigger. You still have to pay it off AND make some profit, before that happens.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Waddaya mean    stuck    .
Those who are incompetent use whatever came/comes with their computer ( IE on Vista/Win7 ) , and the competent don    t use IE , no matter what the OS is.Except in Europe , where we have the browser ballot.Oh , and don    t bet on my sites caring if you got a browser with a buggy implementation of an outdated standard.IE9 will be the first IE I    m going to support again .
But only if they adhere to the standard by the same means as other browsers .
( MS : That does not mean we    re good .
Your respect debt will just stop getting bigger .
You still have to pay it off AND make some profit , before that happens .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Waddaya mean “stuck”.
Those who are incompetent use whatever came/comes with their computer (IE on Vista/Win7), and the competent don’t use IE, no matter what the OS is.Except in Europe, where we have the browser ballot.Oh, and don’t bet on my sites caring if you got a browser with a buggy implementation of an outdated standard.IE9 will be the first IE I’m going to support again.
But only if they adhere to the standard by the same means as other browsers.
(MS: That does not mean we’re good.
Your respect debt will just stop getting bigger.
You still have to pay it off AND make some profit, before that happens.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549210</id>
	<title>Re:Breaking News!</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1269097140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you judge the age of the OS?  From when it was first released, or from when they stopped selling it?  I just checked on the Dell site, and they're still shipping machines with Windows XP.  </p><p>
This announcement isn't really surprising.  The new rendering code in IE9 uses DirectX 10, which hasn't been back-ported to XP.  The official reason, of course, is that it's impossible.  For some reason, this hasn't stopped GPU manufacturers exposing all of the DX10 functionality via OpenGL extensions on XP.  Maybe Microsoft should use OpenGL, rather than DirectX, and then they could run their apps on XP...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you judge the age of the OS ?
From when it was first released , or from when they stopped selling it ?
I just checked on the Dell site , and they 're still shipping machines with Windows XP .
This announcement is n't really surprising .
The new rendering code in IE9 uses DirectX 10 , which has n't been back-ported to XP .
The official reason , of course , is that it 's impossible .
For some reason , this has n't stopped GPU manufacturers exposing all of the DX10 functionality via OpenGL extensions on XP .
Maybe Microsoft should use OpenGL , rather than DirectX , and then they could run their apps on XP.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you judge the age of the OS?
From when it was first released, or from when they stopped selling it?
I just checked on the Dell site, and they're still shipping machines with Windows XP.
This announcement isn't really surprising.
The new rendering code in IE9 uses DirectX 10, which hasn't been back-ported to XP.
The official reason, of course, is that it's impossible.
For some reason, this hasn't stopped GPU manufacturers exposing all of the DX10 functionality via OpenGL extensions on XP.
Maybe Microsoft should use OpenGL, rather than DirectX, and then they could run their apps on XP...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548806</id>
	<title>Re:I can!</title>
	<author>Mystra\_x64</author>
	<datestamp>1269092700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought something like that when I wanted to test IE9 preview. Aside from the fact that I boot my Debian instead.</p><p>I've downloaded Vista image from MS site but had no luck. It does not have any SP at all. And SP1 (downloaded by hand) was unable to install itself. Nice...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought something like that when I wanted to test IE9 preview .
Aside from the fact that I boot my Debian instead.I 've downloaded Vista image from MS site but had no luck .
It does not have any SP at all .
And SP1 ( downloaded by hand ) was unable to install itself .
Nice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought something like that when I wanted to test IE9 preview.
Aside from the fact that I boot my Debian instead.I've downloaded Vista image from MS site but had no luck.
It does not have any SP at all.
And SP1 (downloaded by hand) was unable to install itself.
Nice...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548604</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549088</id>
	<title>I wonder if Microsoft offered an XP--2 edition</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For say $20 or so that offered XP users DX 10 and IE 9 would XP users be willing to pay for it???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For say $ 20 or so that offered XP users DX 10 and IE 9 would XP users be willing to pay for it ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For say $20 or so that offered XP users DX 10 and IE 9 would XP users be willing to pay for it??
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549218</id>
	<title>This is great news!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269097320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, this is actually great news, as it increases the odds of ie dying eventually. Hope isn't lost.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.~.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , this is actually great news , as it increases the odds of ie dying eventually .
Hope is n't lost .
. ~ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, this is actually great news, as it increases the odds of ie dying eventually.
Hope isn't lost.
.~.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31557018</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1269180780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 is not stable.  Well not where I am.  Windows 7 is however better than Vista but my dog could have barfed up something better than Vista.</p><p>So far I find I have to reboot 7 more often than an XP machine.  I'm also one of those that have put 7 on a laptop that formally had XP and the battery lasts roughly half as long.  And what is with 7 and the missing drivers? The worst is when it says it can't find the NIC driver.</p><p>XP from a user perspective very stable.  From a guy who has to build web sites that support ie on XP Nightmare.</p><p>At the moment the it just works OS that I use, has to be Ubuntu.  Never fails to get all the drivers working these days.  And I gotta say I never thought I'd see that happen.</p><p>( An aside. I kept on trying Vista. x32 x64 laptops desktops etc.  Every single time something didn't work. )</p><p>( Another Aside.  What is with the 7 interface. It feels completely half done. )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is not stable .
Well not where I am .
Windows 7 is however better than Vista but my dog could have barfed up something better than Vista.So far I find I have to reboot 7 more often than an XP machine .
I 'm also one of those that have put 7 on a laptop that formally had XP and the battery lasts roughly half as long .
And what is with 7 and the missing drivers ?
The worst is when it says it ca n't find the NIC driver.XP from a user perspective very stable .
From a guy who has to build web sites that support ie on XP Nightmare.At the moment the it just works OS that I use , has to be Ubuntu .
Never fails to get all the drivers working these days .
And I got ta say I never thought I 'd see that happen .
( An aside .
I kept on trying Vista .
x32 x64 laptops desktops etc .
Every single time something did n't work .
) ( Another Aside .
What is with the 7 interface .
It feels completely half done .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is not stable.
Well not where I am.
Windows 7 is however better than Vista but my dog could have barfed up something better than Vista.So far I find I have to reboot 7 more often than an XP machine.
I'm also one of those that have put 7 on a laptop that formally had XP and the battery lasts roughly half as long.
And what is with 7 and the missing drivers?
The worst is when it says it can't find the NIC driver.XP from a user perspective very stable.
From a guy who has to build web sites that support ie on XP Nightmare.At the moment the it just works OS that I use, has to be Ubuntu.
Never fails to get all the drivers working these days.
And I gotta say I never thought I'd see that happen.
( An aside.
I kept on trying Vista.
x32 x64 laptops desktops etc.
Every single time something didn't work.
)( Another Aside.
What is with the 7 interface.
It feels completely half done.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550908</id>
	<title>Technical reasons?</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1269113460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As there are no technical reasons to keep IE9 away from XP we will soon get the message that IE9 is now also kindly offered for XP users.</p><p>That is Public Relations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As there are no technical reasons to keep IE9 away from XP we will soon get the message that IE9 is now also kindly offered for XP users.That is Public Relations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As there are no technical reasons to keep IE9 away from XP we will soon get the message that IE9 is now also kindly offered for XP users.That is Public Relations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548720</id>
	<title>Long live...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269091260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE6! IE7? IE8? Don't think so. I'd prefer to stick with IE6. I still use XP though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 !
IE7 ? IE8 ?
Do n't think so .
I 'd prefer to stick with IE6 .
I still use XP though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6!
IE7? IE8?
Don't think so.
I'd prefer to stick with IE6.
I still use XP though.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549316</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269098280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista and Windows 7 don't run on my computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista and Windows 7 do n't run on my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista and Windows 7 don't run on my computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31561208</id>
	<title>Follow the (lack of) money</title>
	<author>hicksw</author>
	<datestamp>1269172860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a household with a half dozen desktop/servers and a half dozen laptops.  Eight run XP and the other four still run Win2K.  They do what I want and need.  The hardware is not dying.  You seem to think it would be a good idea for me to blow $2K on MS Win7 licenses to get graphics features that my hardware does not support and that I do not require.</p><p>I reckon I have four years to move to FOSS or wait for another business refresh to dump some Win7 boxes on the used market for cheap.</p><p>Now, get off my lawn.<br>--<br>If it's good, they'll stop making it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a household with a half dozen desktop/servers and a half dozen laptops .
Eight run XP and the other four still run Win2K .
They do what I want and need .
The hardware is not dying .
You seem to think it would be a good idea for me to blow $ 2K on MS Win7 licenses to get graphics features that my hardware does not support and that I do not require.I reckon I have four years to move to FOSS or wait for another business refresh to dump some Win7 boxes on the used market for cheap.Now , get off my lawn.--If it 's good , they 'll stop making it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a household with a half dozen desktop/servers and a half dozen laptops.
Eight run XP and the other four still run Win2K.
They do what I want and need.
The hardware is not dying.
You seem to think it would be a good idea for me to blow $2K on MS Win7 licenses to get graphics features that my hardware does not support and that I do not require.I reckon I have four years to move to FOSS or wait for another business refresh to dump some Win7 boxes on the used market for cheap.Now, get off my lawn.--If it's good, they'll stop making it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549792</id>
	<title>Of course its impossible</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269103680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though anyone can easily play todays latest and greatest 3-D power hungry GPU accelerated video games on XP it stands to reason it should be impossible to provide any sort of GPU acceleration for a web browser.  I totally understand Microsofts position.</p><p>My advice to Microsoft is to keep up the good work.  I'm sure the other browser vendors will all be following suite requiring Vista for their GPU acceleration.  I mean its not like Adobe reader already provides it on XP...oh...it does..oops.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though anyone can easily play todays latest and greatest 3-D power hungry GPU accelerated video games on XP it stands to reason it should be impossible to provide any sort of GPU acceleration for a web browser .
I totally understand Microsofts position.My advice to Microsoft is to keep up the good work .
I 'm sure the other browser vendors will all be following suite requiring Vista for their GPU acceleration .
I mean its not like Adobe reader already provides it on XP...oh...it does..oops .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though anyone can easily play todays latest and greatest 3-D power hungry GPU accelerated video games on XP it stands to reason it should be impossible to provide any sort of GPU acceleration for a web browser.
I totally understand Microsofts position.My advice to Microsoft is to keep up the good work.
I'm sure the other browser vendors will all be following suite requiring Vista for their GPU acceleration.
I mean its not like Adobe reader already provides it on XP...oh...it does..oops.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549214</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>gaspyy</author>
	<datestamp>1269097200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out. That's when I'll start installing it for business users.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're so full of it. 7 is rock-solid out of the box. I've been testing it since beta and we were ready to upgrade as soon as it hit the stores.<br>Windows 7 without any SP is faster and more secure than XP-SP3. But not even SP1 is good enough for you, you need SP2; why not SP4?</p><p>Tell me, make a list of issues that prevent your company from upgrading. I'll wait.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out .
That 's when I 'll start installing it for business users.You 're so full of it .
7 is rock-solid out of the box .
I 've been testing it since beta and we were ready to upgrade as soon as it hit the stores.Windows 7 without any SP is faster and more secure than XP-SP3 .
But not even SP1 is good enough for you , you need SP2 ; why not SP4 ? Tell me , make a list of issues that prevent your company from upgrading .
I 'll wait .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out.
That's when I'll start installing it for business users.You're so full of it.
7 is rock-solid out of the box.
I've been testing it since beta and we were ready to upgrade as soon as it hit the stores.Windows 7 without any SP is faster and more secure than XP-SP3.
But not even SP1 is good enough for you, you need SP2; why not SP4?Tell me, make a list of issues that prevent your company from upgrading.
I'll wait.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549096</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1269095760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Very few corporate intranets have mandated XP/IE8.</i> </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and even fewer Firefox.</p><p>MS has the centralized deployment and management tools you <b>must</b> have in the corporate work-space.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very few corporate intranets have mandated XP/IE8 .
... and even fewer Firefox.MS has the centralized deployment and management tools you must have in the corporate work-space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very few corporate intranets have mandated XP/IE8.
... and even fewer Firefox.MS has the centralized deployment and management tools you must have in the corporate work-space.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550006</id>
	<title>Bogon overload</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269106260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is literally impossible... in the same sentence where they list two ways to do it.</p><p>My bogosity meter just blew up.</p><p>What they are saying is that they can't do it without spending more money on it than they want to. More accurately they are saying that they want to get people to move from XP to 7. They do not make a dime pushing out a patch for XP. In fact, doing that costs them money. OTOH, if they refuse to provide features on XP such as DIrectX 10 and 11, and now IE 9 a bunch of people run out and buy Windows 7 either in a box or in a new computer and that mean income for MS.</p><p>Do you remember when it was "impossible" to release DirectX 10 for XP? It was impossible for MS to do it, a bunch of "amateurs" did it almost no time at all. That is, by the time I had heard the news one of my students had already installed DirectX on XP and was running the demos that came with it.</p><p>Have you looked at a list of the games that only support DirectX 10 and/or 11 that will not run on any version of DirectX 9? The list is very short. Shorter than this post... So, what is really happening is that MS was  abandoning its real customer base, the 72\% of windows users who use Windows XP. They don't make money off of them so they have no interest in spending money on them. You know why their are so few DirectX 10 and 11 games? Because 72\% of Windows user are running XP. The game companies have to write code for machines their customers have. In fact, a lot of smaller companies are moving to OpenGL because they can get all the new 3D features of DIrectX 10 and 11 on XP. sheesh...</p><p>It is unbelievable what a company is so certain of retaining its customers that it can abandon them and mistreat them and still assume they will be customers in the future. But, they can because they own the *minds* of their customers.</p><p>Well... I notice I'm starting to rant... so...</p><p>Stonewolf</p><p>OK, just one last rant... I've had to explain to a students that memorizing the DIrectX API would not help him write games for his favorite game box, the PS 3. He called me a liar. His world view did not include a computer that ran an OS other than Windows or a game that was written using any thing but DirectX. It is so sad...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is literally impossible... in the same sentence where they list two ways to do it.My bogosity meter just blew up.What they are saying is that they ca n't do it without spending more money on it than they want to .
More accurately they are saying that they want to get people to move from XP to 7 .
They do not make a dime pushing out a patch for XP .
In fact , doing that costs them money .
OTOH , if they refuse to provide features on XP such as DIrectX 10 and 11 , and now IE 9 a bunch of people run out and buy Windows 7 either in a box or in a new computer and that mean income for MS.Do you remember when it was " impossible " to release DirectX 10 for XP ?
It was impossible for MS to do it , a bunch of " amateurs " did it almost no time at all .
That is , by the time I had heard the news one of my students had already installed DirectX on XP and was running the demos that came with it.Have you looked at a list of the games that only support DirectX 10 and/or 11 that will not run on any version of DirectX 9 ?
The list is very short .
Shorter than this post... So , what is really happening is that MS was abandoning its real customer base , the 72 \ % of windows users who use Windows XP .
They do n't make money off of them so they have no interest in spending money on them .
You know why their are so few DirectX 10 and 11 games ?
Because 72 \ % of Windows user are running XP .
The game companies have to write code for machines their customers have .
In fact , a lot of smaller companies are moving to OpenGL because they can get all the new 3D features of DIrectX 10 and 11 on XP .
sheesh...It is unbelievable what a company is so certain of retaining its customers that it can abandon them and mistreat them and still assume they will be customers in the future .
But , they can because they own the * minds * of their customers.Well... I notice I 'm starting to rant... so...StonewolfOK , just one last rant... I 've had to explain to a students that memorizing the DIrectX API would not help him write games for his favorite game box , the PS 3 .
He called me a liar .
His world view did not include a computer that ran an OS other than Windows or a game that was written using any thing but DirectX .
It is so sad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is literally impossible... in the same sentence where they list two ways to do it.My bogosity meter just blew up.What they are saying is that they can't do it without spending more money on it than they want to.
More accurately they are saying that they want to get people to move from XP to 7.
They do not make a dime pushing out a patch for XP.
In fact, doing that costs them money.
OTOH, if they refuse to provide features on XP such as DIrectX 10 and 11, and now IE 9 a bunch of people run out and buy Windows 7 either in a box or in a new computer and that mean income for MS.Do you remember when it was "impossible" to release DirectX 10 for XP?
It was impossible for MS to do it, a bunch of "amateurs" did it almost no time at all.
That is, by the time I had heard the news one of my students had already installed DirectX on XP and was running the demos that came with it.Have you looked at a list of the games that only support DirectX 10 and/or 11 that will not run on any version of DirectX 9?
The list is very short.
Shorter than this post... So, what is really happening is that MS was  abandoning its real customer base, the 72\% of windows users who use Windows XP.
They don't make money off of them so they have no interest in spending money on them.
You know why their are so few DirectX 10 and 11 games?
Because 72\% of Windows user are running XP.
The game companies have to write code for machines their customers have.
In fact, a lot of smaller companies are moving to OpenGL because they can get all the new 3D features of DIrectX 10 and 11 on XP.
sheesh...It is unbelievable what a company is so certain of retaining its customers that it can abandon them and mistreat them and still assume they will be customers in the future.
But, they can because they own the *minds* of their customers.Well... I notice I'm starting to rant... so...StonewolfOK, just one last rant... I've had to explain to a students that memorizing the DIrectX API would not help him write games for his favorite game box, the PS 3.
He called me a liar.
His world view did not include a computer that ran an OS other than Windows or a game that was written using any thing but DirectX.
It is so sad...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549382</id>
	<title>Way to spin IE9 on the negative...</title>
	<author>AlexLibman</author>
	<datestamp>1269098880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gee wiz, how will Commiedot cover IE9, the most revolutionary Web browser since Microsoft won the browser wars and invented the technologies behind AJAX in the late 1990s?  Will they mention Microsoft's embrace and leadership with HTML5 and progress toward 100\% Acid3 compatibility?  Will they mention awesome developer tools / profiling / Visual Studio 2010 integration that makes Firebug look like a retard on a tricycle trying to race the space-shuttle?  Will they solemnly admit that an early pre-alpha version already blows Firefox 3.6 out of the water in terms of performance?  (And the Windows version of Firefox runs faster than the Linux version, even through Wine, and Windows graphics card support is much better than Linux / Solaris / *BSD, so the difference with an all-FLOSS desktop would be even greater, especially on new hardware.)</p><p>Nah, not a chance, they have their socialist anti-Microsoft agenda to promote!  First they'll dig up a story about Google Chrome trying to do some 3D acceleration (which would be pretty hard without the level of hardware vendor support that Microsoft has earned over the years), and then they'll whine that it won't run on a 10-year-old operating system...  I'd like to see how well the 2011 versions of the top FLOSS browser binaries work on Red Hat 6!</p><p>Yet again we see capitalist software achieve its market share on the basis of merit.  Yet again we see socialist software playing <a href="http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/second-handers.html" title="aynrandlexicon.com" rel="nofollow">second-hander</a> [aynrandlexicon.com] catch-up with the aid of government force (ex. the forced EU browser ballot screen, etc).  But, just like the former claims that the Soviet Union will surpass the American economy, the socialist software model continues to fall flat - consumers are willing to pay more for quality, convenience, and innovation (which often leads to a lower total cost of ownership), and companies like Microsoft are able to invest that money to hire the top developer brains this world has to offer, thus perpetuating the positive feedback cycle of wealth creation.  Government-subsidized European college hippies(which is where most socialist software originates) steal tax money from companies like Microsoft, which is the only reason their development model didn't end up on the ash heap of history just quite yet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gee wiz , how will Commiedot cover IE9 , the most revolutionary Web browser since Microsoft won the browser wars and invented the technologies behind AJAX in the late 1990s ?
Will they mention Microsoft 's embrace and leadership with HTML5 and progress toward 100 \ % Acid3 compatibility ?
Will they mention awesome developer tools / profiling / Visual Studio 2010 integration that makes Firebug look like a retard on a tricycle trying to race the space-shuttle ?
Will they solemnly admit that an early pre-alpha version already blows Firefox 3.6 out of the water in terms of performance ?
( And the Windows version of Firefox runs faster than the Linux version , even through Wine , and Windows graphics card support is much better than Linux / Solaris / * BSD , so the difference with an all-FLOSS desktop would be even greater , especially on new hardware .
) Nah , not a chance , they have their socialist anti-Microsoft agenda to promote !
First they 'll dig up a story about Google Chrome trying to do some 3D acceleration ( which would be pretty hard without the level of hardware vendor support that Microsoft has earned over the years ) , and then they 'll whine that it wo n't run on a 10-year-old operating system... I 'd like to see how well the 2011 versions of the top FLOSS browser binaries work on Red Hat 6 ! Yet again we see capitalist software achieve its market share on the basis of merit .
Yet again we see socialist software playing second-hander [ aynrandlexicon.com ] catch-up with the aid of government force ( ex .
the forced EU browser ballot screen , etc ) .
But , just like the former claims that the Soviet Union will surpass the American economy , the socialist software model continues to fall flat - consumers are willing to pay more for quality , convenience , and innovation ( which often leads to a lower total cost of ownership ) , and companies like Microsoft are able to invest that money to hire the top developer brains this world has to offer , thus perpetuating the positive feedback cycle of wealth creation .
Government-subsidized European college hippies ( which is where most socialist software originates ) steal tax money from companies like Microsoft , which is the only reason their development model did n't end up on the ash heap of history just quite yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gee wiz, how will Commiedot cover IE9, the most revolutionary Web browser since Microsoft won the browser wars and invented the technologies behind AJAX in the late 1990s?
Will they mention Microsoft's embrace and leadership with HTML5 and progress toward 100\% Acid3 compatibility?
Will they mention awesome developer tools / profiling / Visual Studio 2010 integration that makes Firebug look like a retard on a tricycle trying to race the space-shuttle?
Will they solemnly admit that an early pre-alpha version already blows Firefox 3.6 out of the water in terms of performance?
(And the Windows version of Firefox runs faster than the Linux version, even through Wine, and Windows graphics card support is much better than Linux / Solaris / *BSD, so the difference with an all-FLOSS desktop would be even greater, especially on new hardware.
)Nah, not a chance, they have their socialist anti-Microsoft agenda to promote!
First they'll dig up a story about Google Chrome trying to do some 3D acceleration (which would be pretty hard without the level of hardware vendor support that Microsoft has earned over the years), and then they'll whine that it won't run on a 10-year-old operating system...  I'd like to see how well the 2011 versions of the top FLOSS browser binaries work on Red Hat 6!Yet again we see capitalist software achieve its market share on the basis of merit.
Yet again we see socialist software playing second-hander [aynrandlexicon.com] catch-up with the aid of government force (ex.
the forced EU browser ballot screen, etc).
But, just like the former claims that the Soviet Union will surpass the American economy, the socialist software model continues to fall flat - consumers are willing to pay more for quality, convenience, and innovation (which often leads to a lower total cost of ownership), and companies like Microsoft are able to invest that money to hire the top developer brains this world has to offer, thus perpetuating the positive feedback cycle of wealth creation.
Government-subsidized European college hippies(which is where most socialist software originates) steal tax money from companies like Microsoft, which is the only reason their development model didn't end up on the ash heap of history just quite yet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549718</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Gnavpot</author>
	<datestamp>1269102780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>XP was released in 2001. It got nearly a decade of mainstream support, and it going to have 13 years in total support.</p></div><p>I see this a lot, and I think it is the wrong way to count support length.</p><p>Support length of Software version X should be calculated from the release date of Software <strong>version X+1</strong>, or from the date where sale of version X stopped.</p><p>If a company releases a new version every 10 years and pulls support after 10 years + 1 day, I will consider the support rather shitty.</p><p>(In the discussion of XP it can even be argued that support length should be calculated from the release date of version X+2, since a large part of the user base discarded version X+1 and some of them even went as far as removing it from new computers.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP was released in 2001 .
It got nearly a decade of mainstream support , and it going to have 13 years in total support.I see this a lot , and I think it is the wrong way to count support length.Support length of Software version X should be calculated from the release date of Software version X + 1 , or from the date where sale of version X stopped.If a company releases a new version every 10 years and pulls support after 10 years + 1 day , I will consider the support rather shitty .
( In the discussion of XP it can even be argued that support length should be calculated from the release date of version X + 2 , since a large part of the user base discarded version X + 1 and some of them even went as far as removing it from new computers .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP was released in 2001.
It got nearly a decade of mainstream support, and it going to have 13 years in total support.I see this a lot, and I think it is the wrong way to count support length.Support length of Software version X should be calculated from the release date of Software version X+1, or from the date where sale of version X stopped.If a company releases a new version every 10 years and pulls support after 10 years + 1 day, I will consider the support rather shitty.
(In the discussion of XP it can even be argued that support length should be calculated from the release date of version X+2, since a large part of the user base discarded version X+1 and some of them even went as far as removing it from new computers.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548772</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>jhol13</author>
	<datestamp>1269092220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought a brand new computer two weeks ago. Want bet what the OS in it was?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought a brand new computer two weeks ago .
Want bet what the OS in it was ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought a brand new computer two weeks ago.
Want bet what the OS in it was?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550028</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>jack2000</author>
	<datestamp>1269106500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>DirectX 10 WORKS on XP, I'm using it on XP64 even!
That bit about XP not supporting the DX10 because of new os architecture was a huge load of bullshit!</htmltext>
<tokenext>DirectX 10 WORKS on XP , I 'm using it on XP64 even !
That bit about XP not supporting the DX10 because of new os architecture was a huge load of bullshit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DirectX 10 WORKS on XP, I'm using it on XP64 even!
That bit about XP not supporting the DX10 because of new os architecture was a huge load of bullshit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</id>
	<title>So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269089520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're gonna have another IE6 on our hands in a few years time - every other browser (and maybe IE9, IE10 and so on) will (hopefully) be implementing HTML5 properly in the future but XP users will be stuck with IE8 so websites will never you be able to make the switch to HTML5 (replacing Flash with &lt;video&gt; etc..) because of having to support IE8</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're gon na have another IE6 on our hands in a few years time - every other browser ( and maybe IE9 , IE10 and so on ) will ( hopefully ) be implementing HTML5 properly in the future but XP users will be stuck with IE8 so websites will never you be able to make the switch to HTML5 ( replacing Flash with etc.. ) because of having to support IE8</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're gonna have another IE6 on our hands in a few years time - every other browser (and maybe IE9, IE10 and so on) will (hopefully) be implementing HTML5 properly in the future but XP users will be stuck with IE8 so websites will never you be able to make the switch to HTML5 (replacing Flash with  etc..) because of having to support IE8</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548962</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269094380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IS isn't a "feature" of the OS, it's an application that runs on the OS.  Considering XPs market share, it's obviously more of a business decision than a technical one to drop support.  Every other browser has found a way to work with XP and if IE was a separately responsible business area of Microsoft this problem would get solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IS is n't a " feature " of the OS , it 's an application that runs on the OS .
Considering XPs market share , it 's obviously more of a business decision than a technical one to drop support .
Every other browser has found a way to work with XP and if IE was a separately responsible business area of Microsoft this problem would get solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IS isn't a "feature" of the OS, it's an application that runs on the OS.
Considering XPs market share, it's obviously more of a business decision than a technical one to drop support.
Every other browser has found a way to work with XP and if IE was a separately responsible business area of Microsoft this problem would get solved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550492</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1269110340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you also weep for Win95 users?</p><p>Those people aren't "stuck with IE8". Last I checked, Firefox still runs on XP, and so does Chrome. Does this mean that stubborn XP users would have to jump through extra hoops? Sure, but this is no different from what you'd have to do now to surf the Net on a Win98 machine and actually get all the features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you also weep for Win95 users ? Those people are n't " stuck with IE8 " .
Last I checked , Firefox still runs on XP , and so does Chrome .
Does this mean that stubborn XP users would have to jump through extra hoops ?
Sure , but this is no different from what you 'd have to do now to surf the Net on a Win98 machine and actually get all the features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you also weep for Win95 users?Those people aren't "stuck with IE8".
Last I checked, Firefox still runs on XP, and so does Chrome.
Does this mean that stubborn XP users would have to jump through extra hoops?
Sure, but this is no different from what you'd have to do now to surf the Net on a Win98 machine and actually get all the features.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550528</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen many stupid things in my life but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269110700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're not a software developer, are you?  They said it was impossible to backport the feature to XP.  They offered some alternative methods of achieving the same end result, but an alternative implementation is not a backport.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're not a software developer , are you ?
They said it was impossible to backport the feature to XP .
They offered some alternative methods of achieving the same end result , but an alternative implementation is not a backport .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're not a software developer, are you?
They said it was impossible to backport the feature to XP.
They offered some alternative methods of achieving the same end result, but an alternative implementation is not a backport.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551548</id>
	<title>This is surprising why?</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1269118200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their new browser won't support (what probably will be, by the time IE9 comes out) a 10-year-old operating system. Somehow, I'm not all that shocked. IE6 didn't support Win3.1 either. This is the same deal.</p><p>XP is the past. It's time to move on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their new browser wo n't support ( what probably will be , by the time IE9 comes out ) a 10-year-old operating system .
Somehow , I 'm not all that shocked .
IE6 did n't support Win3.1 either .
This is the same deal.XP is the past .
It 's time to move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their new browser won't support (what probably will be, by the time IE9 comes out) a 10-year-old operating system.
Somehow, I'm not all that shocked.
IE6 didn't support Win3.1 either.
This is the same deal.XP is the past.
It's time to move on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269092760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your point might be valid if Microsoft successfully came out with a new operating system every 3-4 years.  But they don't.  Vista was a mess as we all know and most business users have skipped it entirely.  It should not even be counted as a legitimate version.  Obviously Microsoft didn't consider it to be legitimate or they would not have gotten 7 out so quickly.</p><p>So, you can say "XP has been out for 10 years now", but I prefer to say, "Windows XP is the most recent version of Windows with a released service pack." Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out.  That's when I'll start installing it for business users.  And Microsoft should be expected to support XP for at least 5 years after that.</p><p>I idea that Microsoft is talking about ending support for the only stable operating system they currently have out is ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your point might be valid if Microsoft successfully came out with a new operating system every 3-4 years .
But they do n't .
Vista was a mess as we all know and most business users have skipped it entirely .
It should not even be counted as a legitimate version .
Obviously Microsoft did n't consider it to be legitimate or they would not have gotten 7 out so quickly.So , you can say " XP has been out for 10 years now " , but I prefer to say , " Windows XP is the most recent version of Windows with a released service pack .
" Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out .
That 's when I 'll start installing it for business users .
And Microsoft should be expected to support XP for at least 5 years after that.I idea that Microsoft is talking about ending support for the only stable operating system they currently have out is ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your point might be valid if Microsoft successfully came out with a new operating system every 3-4 years.
But they don't.
Vista was a mess as we all know and most business users have skipped it entirely.
It should not even be counted as a legitimate version.
Obviously Microsoft didn't consider it to be legitimate or they would not have gotten 7 out so quickly.So, you can say "XP has been out for 10 years now", but I prefer to say, "Windows XP is the most recent version of Windows with a released service pack.
" Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out.
That's when I'll start installing it for business users.
And Microsoft should be expected to support XP for at least 5 years after that.I idea that Microsoft is talking about ending support for the only stable operating system they currently have out is ludicrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549534</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269100440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Windows 7 is basically Vista with a new face (and name) you could easily say that Win7 is Sp3.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Windows 7 is basically Vista with a new face ( and name ) you could easily say that Win7 is Sp3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Windows 7 is basically Vista with a new face (and name) you could easily say that Win7 is Sp3.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31567132</id>
	<title>Re:Thats really annoying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269269640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I prefer the command line ftp client, but to each their own...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I prefer the command line ftp client , but to each their own.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I prefer the command line ftp client, but to each their own...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549618</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>allcaps</author>
	<datestamp>1269101640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kirby has been supporting their old vacuums for quite some time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kirby has been supporting their old vacuums for quite some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kirby has been supporting their old vacuums for quite some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31555242</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>rsborg</author>
	<datestamp>1269108360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes out</p></div></blockquote><p>Since you feel you need an SP2 for business use... </p><p>Windows 7 IS Vista SP2.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes outSince you feel you need an SP2 for business use... Windows 7 IS Vista SP2 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Talk to me when Windows 7 Service Pack 2 comes outSince you feel you need an SP2 for business use... Windows 7 IS Vista SP2.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549212</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1269097200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that you say XP is their only stable operating system shows the fact that you are just an anti-MS zealot, or very not up to date on their OSes. Windows 7 is exceedingly stable, as is Vista. So long as you are running on stable hardware that has tested drivers, you aren't going to find any stability problems. Certainly not more than XP and probably even less.</p><p>If your metric for a stable OS really is number of service packs, then you are a fool who's got no business doing computer support. I rather suspect that's not the case, and you simply don't like MS.</p><p>Also this all misses the point that in no way is MS getting rid of XP. They are simply not bringing their latest browser, as of yet unreleased, to it. If that really is something you find to be a big deal, you've got extremely strange priorities, or a case of anti-MS zealotry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that you say XP is their only stable operating system shows the fact that you are just an anti-MS zealot , or very not up to date on their OSes .
Windows 7 is exceedingly stable , as is Vista .
So long as you are running on stable hardware that has tested drivers , you are n't going to find any stability problems .
Certainly not more than XP and probably even less.If your metric for a stable OS really is number of service packs , then you are a fool who 's got no business doing computer support .
I rather suspect that 's not the case , and you simply do n't like MS.Also this all misses the point that in no way is MS getting rid of XP .
They are simply not bringing their latest browser , as of yet unreleased , to it .
If that really is something you find to be a big deal , you 've got extremely strange priorities , or a case of anti-MS zealotry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that you say XP is their only stable operating system shows the fact that you are just an anti-MS zealot, or very not up to date on their OSes.
Windows 7 is exceedingly stable, as is Vista.
So long as you are running on stable hardware that has tested drivers, you aren't going to find any stability problems.
Certainly not more than XP and probably even less.If your metric for a stable OS really is number of service packs, then you are a fool who's got no business doing computer support.
I rather suspect that's not the case, and you simply don't like MS.Also this all misses the point that in no way is MS getting rid of XP.
They are simply not bringing their latest browser, as of yet unreleased, to it.
If that really is something you find to be a big deal, you've got extremely strange priorities, or a case of anti-MS zealotry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31555314</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen many stupid things in my life but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269109620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those two methods being:</p><p>A) work around the lack of hardware acceleration or<br>B) use software to emulate the hardware acceleration.</p><p>Both of which involve not being able to use hardware acceleration. So tell me, what part of "It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP" does this contradict?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those two methods being : A ) work around the lack of hardware acceleration orB ) use software to emulate the hardware acceleration.Both of which involve not being able to use hardware acceleration .
So tell me , what part of " It 's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP " does this contradict ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those two methods being:A) work around the lack of hardware acceleration orB) use software to emulate the hardware acceleration.Both of which involve not being able to use hardware acceleration.
So tell me, what part of "It's literally impossible to port Windows Vista/Win 7-style hardware acceleration backwards to XP" does this contradict?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550126</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>K. S. Kyosuke</author>
	<datestamp>1269107280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8</p></div><p>Like those who don't disable automatic updates of their XP system?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8Like those who do n't disable automatic updates of their XP system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP users savvy enough to upgrade to IE8Like those who don't disable automatic updates of their XP system?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549148</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft</title>
	<author>johnlcallaway</author>
	<datestamp>1269096540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With all their advances, I guess they haven't discovered either of the 'if<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... then' or 'switch<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... case' programming logic....</htmltext>
<tokenext>With all their advances , I guess they have n't discovered either of the 'if ... then ' or 'switch ... case ' programming logic... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all their advances, I guess they haven't discovered either of the 'if ... then' or 'switch ... case' programming logic....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548726</id>
	<title>XP sucks</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1269091440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista and 7 rock. What's the problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista and 7 rock .
What 's the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista and 7 rock.
What's the problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550948</id>
	<title>Re:I've seen many stupid things in my life but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269113760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though work-arounds are available, it's still impossible to backport the hardware acceleration. If you ever get to run IE9 on XP, it won't have hardware acceleration. So what MS says is true, from a certain point of view (you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though work-arounds are available , it 's still impossible to backport the hardware acceleration .
If you ever get to run IE9 on XP , it wo n't have hardware acceleration .
So what MS says is true , from a certain point of view ( you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though work-arounds are available, it's still impossible to backport the hardware acceleration.
If you ever get to run IE9 on XP, it won't have hardware acceleration.
So what MS says is true, from a certain point of view (you will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548994</id>
	<title>Re:People need to stop bitching</title>
	<author>bheer</author>
	<datestamp>1269094740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with everything you say, I'll point out the following (and I usually support MS on many issues):</p><ul><li>Windows Live Messenger 14.x (labelled '9 series' or something) has lots of snazzy Windows 7-style visual effects and was backported to Windows XP (I am aware this is less elaborate than what IE9 is planning).</li><li>Opera supports 2D acceleration under XP</li><li>The technical arguments against backporting to XP are hogwash. Chrome has superior sandboxing on Vista/7, but gracefully downgrades on XP</li><li>Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot by effectively ceding the modern XP browser market to Chrome, Firefox and Opera. XP will still be around 'til 2014-2015. That's 4-5 years. If they think they can afford that, well, more power to them.</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with everything you say , I 'll point out the following ( and I usually support MS on many issues ) : Windows Live Messenger 14.x ( labelled '9 series ' or something ) has lots of snazzy Windows 7-style visual effects and was backported to Windows XP ( I am aware this is less elaborate than what IE9 is planning ) .Opera supports 2D acceleration under XPThe technical arguments against backporting to XP are hogwash .
Chrome has superior sandboxing on Vista/7 , but gracefully downgrades on XPMicrosoft is shooting themselves in the foot by effectively ceding the modern XP browser market to Chrome , Firefox and Opera .
XP will still be around 'til 2014-2015 .
That 's 4-5 years .
If they think they can afford that , well , more power to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with everything you say, I'll point out the following (and I usually support MS on many issues):Windows Live Messenger 14.x (labelled '9 series' or something) has lots of snazzy Windows 7-style visual effects and was backported to Windows XP (I am aware this is less elaborate than what IE9 is planning).Opera supports 2D acceleration under XPThe technical arguments against backporting to XP are hogwash.
Chrome has superior sandboxing on Vista/7, but gracefully downgrades on XPMicrosoft is shooting themselves in the foot by effectively ceding the modern XP browser market to Chrome, Firefox and Opera.
XP will still be around 'til 2014-2015.
That's 4-5 years.
If they think they can afford that, well, more power to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548574</id>
	<title>Thats ok , as an XP user</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269088980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't use Internet Explorer, I use Firefox</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't use Internet Explorer , I use Firefox</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't use Internet Explorer, I use Firefox</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548638</id>
	<title>Win 3.1</title>
	<author>michaelmalak</author>
	<datestamp>1269090240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A software layer emulating hardware acceleration can't be that hard, especially given the existence of good documentation of the software and hardware interfaces.  Must be much easier than developing MAME, for example.  Somebody will do it.<p>It reminds me of Windows 3.1 -- how one had to purchase Trumpet to connect to the Internet.</p><p>Except the difference now is XP satisifies many user's needs, while Windows 95 provided compelling reasons for users to upgrade from Windows 3.1.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A software layer emulating hardware acceleration ca n't be that hard , especially given the existence of good documentation of the software and hardware interfaces .
Must be much easier than developing MAME , for example .
Somebody will do it.It reminds me of Windows 3.1 -- how one had to purchase Trumpet to connect to the Internet.Except the difference now is XP satisifies many user 's needs , while Windows 95 provided compelling reasons for users to upgrade from Windows 3.1 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A software layer emulating hardware acceleration can't be that hard, especially given the existence of good documentation of the software and hardware interfaces.
Must be much easier than developing MAME, for example.
Somebody will do it.It reminds me of Windows 3.1 -- how one had to purchase Trumpet to connect to the Internet.Except the difference now is XP satisifies many user's needs, while Windows 95 provided compelling reasons for users to upgrade from Windows 3.1.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31552110</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder if Microsoft offered an XP--2 edition</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269079500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They already did this - there are actually two different products available.  The price is a little steeper than $20 though.</p><p>One is called Windows Vista and ranges from $70-$300, and the other is called Windows 7 and ranges from $100-$350.</p><p>Seriously, if they have to re-write the fucking desktop to make it work correctly for a product that is in end-of-life support, they aren't going to do it.  Good night, the OS is almost 10 years old now, it's tired, upgrade if you want the cool new features.  That's what makes it an upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They already did this - there are actually two different products available .
The price is a little steeper than $ 20 though.One is called Windows Vista and ranges from $ 70- $ 300 , and the other is called Windows 7 and ranges from $ 100- $ 350.Seriously , if they have to re-write the fucking desktop to make it work correctly for a product that is in end-of-life support , they are n't going to do it .
Good night , the OS is almost 10 years old now , it 's tired , upgrade if you want the cool new features .
That 's what makes it an upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They already did this - there are actually two different products available.
The price is a little steeper than $20 though.One is called Windows Vista and ranges from $70-$300, and the other is called Windows 7 and ranges from $100-$350.Seriously, if they have to re-write the fucking desktop to make it work correctly for a product that is in end-of-life support, they aren't going to do it.
Good night, the OS is almost 10 years old now, it's tired, upgrade if you want the cool new features.
That's what makes it an upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549088</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548604</id>
	<title>I can!</title>
	<author>daoshi</author>
	<datestamp>1269089700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. Switch on my laptop<br>2. Boot into XP.<br>3. Install VirtualBox<br>4. Install Vista in VirtualBox<br>5. Install IE9 in Vista<br>6. ????<br>7. Profit!<br>8. Got infested with virus because of 0day IE9 holes.<br>9. Reboot into Ubuntu and start up Firefox<br>10. World peace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Switch on my laptop2 .
Boot into XP.3 .
Install VirtualBox4 .
Install Vista in VirtualBox5 .
Install IE9 in Vista6 .
? ? ? ? 7. Profit ! 8 .
Got infested with virus because of 0day IE9 holes.9 .
Reboot into Ubuntu and start up Firefox10 .
World peace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Switch on my laptop2.
Boot into XP.3.
Install VirtualBox4.
Install Vista in VirtualBox5.
Install IE9 in Vista6.
????7. Profit!8.
Got infested with virus because of 0day IE9 holes.9.
Reboot into Ubuntu and start up Firefox10.
World peace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549200</id>
	<title>Artical FUD</title>
	<author>edxwelch</author>
	<datestamp>1269097020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone actually RTFA?<br>It's quite funny, because they are saying that the reason IE9 can't be released on XP is becuase of hardware acceleration - meaning it's using the GPU for rendering - and hence is much faster, and then they show a pretty  bargraph showing how much faster it is than ie8 at *javascript* benchmarks. Do they really think the javascript code is being run on the GPU? Of coarse not, it's faster because it's been re-written - the old ie8 javascript engine was basically a pile of poo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone actually RTFA ? It 's quite funny , because they are saying that the reason IE9 ca n't be released on XP is becuase of hardware acceleration - meaning it 's using the GPU for rendering - and hence is much faster , and then they show a pretty bargraph showing how much faster it is than ie8 at * javascript * benchmarks .
Do they really think the javascript code is being run on the GPU ?
Of coarse not , it 's faster because it 's been re-written - the old ie8 javascript engine was basically a pile of poo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone actually RTFA?It's quite funny, because they are saying that the reason IE9 can't be released on XP is becuase of hardware acceleration - meaning it's using the GPU for rendering - and hence is much faster, and then they show a pretty  bargraph showing how much faster it is than ie8 at *javascript* benchmarks.
Do they really think the javascript code is being run on the GPU?
Of coarse not, it's faster because it's been re-written - the old ie8 javascript engine was basically a pile of poo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548814</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>Danzigism</author>
	<datestamp>1269092760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>yea, and there's still loads of line-of-business applications that require IE in conjunction with the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET framework. businesses are the only people still relying on IE6. everyone else is just lazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yea , and there 's still loads of line-of-business applications that require IE in conjunction with the .NET framework .
businesses are the only people still relying on IE6 .
everyone else is just lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea, and there's still loads of line-of-business applications that require IE in conjunction with the .NET framework.
businesses are the only people still relying on IE6.
everyone else is just lazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550904</id>
	<title>Re:Artical FUD</title>
	<author>Anpheus</author>
	<datestamp>1269113460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modifying the DOM rapidly incurs a lot of redraws and reflow. Accelerating this with the GPU will make web applications faster and probably give some Javascript tests a boost.</p><p>That said, they do have a new Javascript engine in IE9 that is completely unrelated to the hardware acceleration feature. I don't think that's the problem with porting to XP though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modifying the DOM rapidly incurs a lot of redraws and reflow .
Accelerating this with the GPU will make web applications faster and probably give some Javascript tests a boost.That said , they do have a new Javascript engine in IE9 that is completely unrelated to the hardware acceleration feature .
I do n't think that 's the problem with porting to XP though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modifying the DOM rapidly incurs a lot of redraws and reflow.
Accelerating this with the GPU will make web applications faster and probably give some Javascript tests a boost.That said, they do have a new Javascript engine in IE9 that is completely unrelated to the hardware acceleration feature.
I don't think that's the problem with porting to XP though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549200</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31555434</id>
	<title>Haaa more MS bullshit</title>
	<author>dogzdik</author>
	<datestamp>1269111120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WHO CARES! <p>-</p><p> Microsoft have served up so much so much crap software, as part of their never ending perpetual consumer beta-testing with the repackage, rebadge and upgrade cycles... </p><p>-</p><p> That I have upgraded to thinking for myself, not taking their shit and moving to BETTER products with BETTER service... </p><p>-</p><p>

Microsoft is now so bad in that department...  </p><p>-</p><p> LOL.... </p><p>-</p><p> Fancy that - rigging the prices of Win 7 and everything else so that the people in the USA get their 10 varieties of operating system, and at about 1/2 the price microsoft charge for the same product in other countries.... </p><p>-</p><p>

Bullshit artists the lot of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WHO CARES !
- Microsoft have served up so much so much crap software , as part of their never ending perpetual consumer beta-testing with the repackage , rebadge and upgrade cycles... - That I have upgraded to thinking for myself , not taking their shit and moving to BETTER products with BETTER service... - Microsoft is now so bad in that department... - LOL.... - Fancy that - rigging the prices of Win 7 and everything else so that the people in the USA get their 10 varieties of operating system , and at about 1/2 the price microsoft charge for the same product in other countries.... - Bullshit artists the lot of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHO CARES!
- Microsoft have served up so much so much crap software, as part of their never ending perpetual consumer beta-testing with the repackage, rebadge and upgrade cycles... - That I have upgraded to thinking for myself, not taking their shit and moving to BETTER products with BETTER service... -

Microsoft is now so bad in that department...  - LOL.... - Fancy that - rigging the prices of Win 7 and everything else so that the people in the USA get their 10 varieties of operating system, and at about 1/2 the price microsoft charge for the same product in other countries.... -

Bullshit artists the lot of them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548644</id>
	<title>Re:So XP users will be stuck with IE8 forever..</title>
	<author>portnux</author>
	<datestamp>1269090300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anyone still use IE, with Chrome and Firefox available who needs IE?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone still use IE , with Chrome and Firefox available who needs IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone still use IE, with Chrome and Firefox available who needs IE?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548644
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550278
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549252
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550492
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550484
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549178
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548922
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31557018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31552110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31555314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550150
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31552332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549096
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550028
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551854
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31555242
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31567132
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_20_0440220_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549210
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549178
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550484
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31567132
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31555314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31552110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549148
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548658
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550028
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31552332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548816
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549752
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549212
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31557018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549214
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31555242
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549718
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548598
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549804
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31548806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31549110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550908
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_20_0440220.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31550006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_20_0440220.31551772
</commentlist>
</conversation>
