<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_16_1756229</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Licensing a "Disaster" For XP Shops</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1245180120000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Enterprise licensing for Windows 7 could cause <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/microsofts-looming-windows-7-licensing-disaster-xp-users-639">major headaches and add more cost to the Windows 7 migration effort</a>, InfoWorld reports. Under the proposed license, businesses that purchase PCs with Windows 7 pre-installed within six months of the <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/05/01/1234221/Windows-7-Launch-Date-Leaked-mdash-23-Oct-2009?art\_pos=3">Oct. 23 launch date</a> will be able to downgrade those systems to XP, and later upgrade back to Windows 7 when ready to migrate users. PCs bought after April 22, 2010, however, can only be downgraded to Vista &mdash; no help for XP-based organizations, which would be wise to wait 12 to 18 months before adopting Windows 7, so that they can test hardware and software compatibility and ensure their vendors' Windows 7 support meets their needs. XP shops that chose not to install Vista will have to either rush their migration process or spend extra to enroll in Microsoft's Software Assurance program, which allows them to install any OS version &mdash; for about $90 per year per PC."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Enterprise licensing for Windows 7 could cause major headaches and add more cost to the Windows 7 migration effort , InfoWorld reports .
Under the proposed license , businesses that purchase PCs with Windows 7 pre-installed within six months of the Oct. 23 launch date will be able to downgrade those systems to XP , and later upgrade back to Windows 7 when ready to migrate users .
PCs bought after April 22 , 2010 , however , can only be downgraded to Vista    no help for XP-based organizations , which would be wise to wait 12 to 18 months before adopting Windows 7 , so that they can test hardware and software compatibility and ensure their vendors ' Windows 7 support meets their needs .
XP shops that chose not to install Vista will have to either rush their migration process or spend extra to enroll in Microsoft 's Software Assurance program , which allows them to install any OS version    for about $ 90 per year per PC .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Enterprise licensing for Windows 7 could cause major headaches and add more cost to the Windows 7 migration effort, InfoWorld reports.
Under the proposed license, businesses that purchase PCs with Windows 7 pre-installed within six months of the Oct. 23 launch date will be able to downgrade those systems to XP, and later upgrade back to Windows 7 when ready to migrate users.
PCs bought after April 22, 2010, however, can only be downgraded to Vista — no help for XP-based organizations, which would be wise to wait 12 to 18 months before adopting Windows 7, so that they can test hardware and software compatibility and ensure their vendors' Windows 7 support meets their needs.
XP shops that chose not to install Vista will have to either rush their migration process or spend extra to enroll in Microsoft's Software Assurance program, which allows them to install any OS version — for about $90 per year per PC.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356723</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245164580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that Snow Leopard is about as much of an improvement over Leopard as XP SP2 over XP SP1.</p><p>Apple is charging $29 for it.</p><p>What did Microsoft charge for XP SP2 again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Snow Leopard is about as much of an improvement over Leopard as XP SP2 over XP SP1.Apple is charging $ 29 for it.What did Microsoft charge for XP SP2 again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Snow Leopard is about as much of an improvement over Leopard as XP SP2 over XP SP1.Apple is charging $29 for it.What did Microsoft charge for XP SP2 again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354771</id>
	<title>Unless you are a school district...</title>
	<author>kenh</author>
	<datestamp>1245152580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work in a public school district and our flavor of SOftware Assurance costs much less than $90/PC - closer to $40/PC including a healthy selection of MS software (Office 2003/2007, the various shrinkwrap applications students use, etc.).</p><p>We save almost $150-200 per PC by not buying an OS pre-installed, and our typical hardware lasts about 5 years in the hands of our students, so the cost is essentially a wash (5x$40 = $200, which is aprox. savings of buying "blank" PCs from Dell), but we always have the ability to upgrade the OS/apps at will.</p><p>We plan on skipping Vista[0] and holding on to XP through the upcoming school year, then deploy Windows 7 on enduser desktops.</p><p>[0] Except for certain tablet laptops which only have drivers for VIsta...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in a public school district and our flavor of SOftware Assurance costs much less than $ 90/PC - closer to $ 40/PC including a healthy selection of MS software ( Office 2003/2007 , the various shrinkwrap applications students use , etc .
) .We save almost $ 150-200 per PC by not buying an OS pre-installed , and our typical hardware lasts about 5 years in the hands of our students , so the cost is essentially a wash ( 5x $ 40 = $ 200 , which is aprox .
savings of buying " blank " PCs from Dell ) , but we always have the ability to upgrade the OS/apps at will.We plan on skipping Vista [ 0 ] and holding on to XP through the upcoming school year , then deploy Windows 7 on enduser desktops .
[ 0 ] Except for certain tablet laptops which only have drivers for VIsta.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in a public school district and our flavor of SOftware Assurance costs much less than $90/PC - closer to $40/PC including a healthy selection of MS software (Office 2003/2007, the various shrinkwrap applications students use, etc.
).We save almost $150-200 per PC by not buying an OS pre-installed, and our typical hardware lasts about 5 years in the hands of our students, so the cost is essentially a wash (5x$40 = $200, which is aprox.
savings of buying "blank" PCs from Dell), but we always have the ability to upgrade the OS/apps at will.We plan on skipping Vista[0] and holding on to XP through the upcoming school year, then deploy Windows 7 on enduser desktops.
[0] Except for certain tablet laptops which only have drivers for VIsta...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099</id>
	<title>My entire shop is SuSE Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have three boxen that run WinXP and we won't be "upgrading".</p><p>Why?</p><p>Cause we can't afford to waste the money when we're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have three boxen that run WinXP and we wo n't be " upgrading " .Why ? Cause we ca n't afford to waste the money when we 're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have three boxen that run WinXP and we won't be "upgrading".Why?Cause we can't afford to waste the money when we're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353953</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>fat\_mike</author>
	<datestamp>1245148200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux has in the last couple of years<br> <br>

- Fucked up the sound sub-system even worse than it was 15 years ago<br> <br>

- Somehow turned into a religion of hate spouting zealots<br> <br>

- Released a confusing myriad of distributions and versions which absolutely make no sense<br> <br>

- Gotten Intel to release open source drivers yet still managed to fuck that up<br> <br>

- Forked GCC<br> <br>

- Claim its greatest accomplishment is Compiz - Wobbly windows, woohoo!<br> <br>

- Somehow manage to be WORSE off than it was in 1999<br> <br>

It's like the captain of the ship's drunk at the helm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has in the last couple of years - Fucked up the sound sub-system even worse than it was 15 years ago - Somehow turned into a religion of hate spouting zealots - Released a confusing myriad of distributions and versions which absolutely make no sense - Gotten Intel to release open source drivers yet still managed to fuck that up - Forked GCC - Claim its greatest accomplishment is Compiz - Wobbly windows , woohoo !
- Somehow manage to be WORSE off than it was in 1999 It 's like the captain of the ship 's drunk at the helm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has in the last couple of years 

- Fucked up the sound sub-system even worse than it was 15 years ago 

- Somehow turned into a religion of hate spouting zealots 

- Released a confusing myriad of distributions and versions which absolutely make no sense 

- Gotten Intel to release open source drivers yet still managed to fuck that up 

- Forked GCC 

- Claim its greatest accomplishment is Compiz - Wobbly windows, woohoo!
- Somehow manage to be WORSE off than it was in 1999 

It's like the captain of the ship's drunk at the helm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352615</id>
	<title>Re:Downgrade then Upgrade... sigh...</title>
	<author>bakawolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245142800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>yes yes, lets keep away from that nasty 64bit stuff.
don't worry about inherent problems in the driver structure either, don't need to fix that!
and god forbid we attempt to make things more secure.
naw, lets just keep XP forever.</htmltext>
<tokenext>yes yes , lets keep away from that nasty 64bit stuff .
do n't worry about inherent problems in the driver structure either , do n't need to fix that !
and god forbid we attempt to make things more secure .
naw , lets just keep XP forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes yes, lets keep away from that nasty 64bit stuff.
don't worry about inherent problems in the driver structure either, don't need to fix that!
and god forbid we attempt to make things more secure.
naw, lets just keep XP forever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358327</id>
	<title>What to do when recession turns into a depression?</title>
	<author>Billly Gates</author>
	<datestamp>1245181260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why raise the price.</p><p>
&nbsp; I am sure all these businesses who are fighting tooth and nail not to lay off any more workers would love to waste more money for an OS that does the same things as XP for more money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why raise the price .
  I am sure all these businesses who are fighting tooth and nail not to lay off any more workers would love to waste more money for an OS that does the same things as XP for more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why raise the price.
  I am sure all these businesses who are fighting tooth and nail not to lay off any more workers would love to waste more money for an OS that does the same things as XP for more money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354183</id>
	<title>No wonder business is slow to embrace change</title>
	<author>thane777</author>
	<datestamp>1245149160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It all comes down to the "stick with what sucks less" mentality.  Businesses are in it for business - not to pay Microsoft to debug their software for them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It all comes down to the " stick with what sucks less " mentality .
Businesses are in it for business - not to pay Microsoft to debug their software for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It all comes down to the "stick with what sucks less" mentality.
Businesses are in it for business - not to pay Microsoft to debug their software for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358071</id>
	<title>headache</title>
	<author>guliverk</author>
	<datestamp>1245178500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows is a major headache<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows is a major headache : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows is a major headache :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352439</id>
	<title>Geeks Care, Users Don't</title>
	<author>WED Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1245185220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Cause we can't afford to waste the money when we're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work.</p></div></blockquote><p>Why upgrade?</p><p>If you buy a new box, you'll most likely get the new OS, but for old boxes that still run and will continue to run, why bother? Geeks love new flashy stuff, but users only care if it works.</p><p>This is why you have people that still have Office 2000 and run XP as an OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause we ca n't afford to waste the money when we 're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work.Why upgrade ? If you buy a new box , you 'll most likely get the new OS , but for old boxes that still run and will continue to run , why bother ?
Geeks love new flashy stuff , but users only care if it works.This is why you have people that still have Office 2000 and run XP as an OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause we can't afford to waste the money when we're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work.Why upgrade?If you buy a new box, you'll most likely get the new OS, but for old boxes that still run and will continue to run, why bother?
Geeks love new flashy stuff, but users only care if it works.This is why you have people that still have Office 2000 and run XP as an OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352861</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>EvanED</author>
	<datestamp>1245143880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, XP is what, 8 years old now? Even though it's seen patches and service packs, the base code is still rather old. Furthermore, XP-64 is not exactly a go-to guy for good driver support.</p><p>Meanwhile, I bet your Ubuntu installation is from the last year, maybe two, and Linux x64 kicks the butt of XP 64.</p><p>Here's a question: how is Windows 7? You said you have the RC of it, but you didn't say how successfully it detected your hardware and that sort of stuff. I bet it did comparable to Ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , XP is what , 8 years old now ?
Even though it 's seen patches and service packs , the base code is still rather old .
Furthermore , XP-64 is not exactly a go-to guy for good driver support.Meanwhile , I bet your Ubuntu installation is from the last year , maybe two , and Linux x64 kicks the butt of XP 64.Here 's a question : how is Windows 7 ?
You said you have the RC of it , but you did n't say how successfully it detected your hardware and that sort of stuff .
I bet it did comparable to Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, XP is what, 8 years old now?
Even though it's seen patches and service packs, the base code is still rather old.
Furthermore, XP-64 is not exactly a go-to guy for good driver support.Meanwhile, I bet your Ubuntu installation is from the last year, maybe two, and Linux x64 kicks the butt of XP 64.Here's a question: how is Windows 7?
You said you have the RC of it, but you didn't say how successfully it detected your hardware and that sort of stuff.
I bet it did comparable to Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355195</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>TClevenger</author>
	<datestamp>1245154920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Windows 7 RC didn't have drivers for the AMD PCNet family of network cards, which are pretty darn popular cards installed in hundreds of thousands of HP computers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows 7 RC did n't have drivers for the AMD PCNet family of network cards , which are pretty darn popular cards installed in hundreds of thousands of HP computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows 7 RC didn't have drivers for the AMD PCNet family of network cards, which are pretty darn popular cards installed in hundreds of thousands of HP computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357603</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Allador</author>
	<datestamp>1245172740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>'ever changing ribbon'??  What does that even mean?</p><p>I know of no applications where the ribbon 'changes'.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon ...'ever changing ribbon ' ? ?
What does that even mean ? I know of no applications where the ribbon 'changes' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon ...'ever changing ribbon'??
What does that even mean?I know of no applications where the ribbon 'changes'.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353641</id>
	<title>XP Support forever</title>
	<author>\_pi-away</author>
	<datestamp>1245146700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the time that XP downgrade issue comes up XP will be 9 years old, how long are they supposed to be supporting this OS?  People love to bag on microsoft for security, but when they try to kill off the largest security flaw on the internet today, the ubiquity of the XP machines where (almost) everyone is running as administrator, people freak out.  Windows 7 finally brings the ability to actually use windows effectively without being administrator and without getting asked for your permission to allow something every 6 seconds.  This is a very Good Thing(TM).</p><p>You've had plenty of time to test for incompatibilities, and if you haven't done it yet start now; Win7 beta is freely available for you to test with right now, I think you'll find most things work fine.  As a side note, if you find some legacy apps that don't play with Windows 7, a good workaround to get the abilities of windows 7 while still using that app is throwing it in a VM.  Not painless but better than sticking with a dead OS.</p><p>If you truly want the internet to be a safer place then you should want XP gone as quickly as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time that XP downgrade issue comes up XP will be 9 years old , how long are they supposed to be supporting this OS ?
People love to bag on microsoft for security , but when they try to kill off the largest security flaw on the internet today , the ubiquity of the XP machines where ( almost ) everyone is running as administrator , people freak out .
Windows 7 finally brings the ability to actually use windows effectively without being administrator and without getting asked for your permission to allow something every 6 seconds .
This is a very Good Thing ( TM ) .You 've had plenty of time to test for incompatibilities , and if you have n't done it yet start now ; Win7 beta is freely available for you to test with right now , I think you 'll find most things work fine .
As a side note , if you find some legacy apps that do n't play with Windows 7 , a good workaround to get the abilities of windows 7 while still using that app is throwing it in a VM .
Not painless but better than sticking with a dead OS.If you truly want the internet to be a safer place then you should want XP gone as quickly as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time that XP downgrade issue comes up XP will be 9 years old, how long are they supposed to be supporting this OS?
People love to bag on microsoft for security, but when they try to kill off the largest security flaw on the internet today, the ubiquity of the XP machines where (almost) everyone is running as administrator, people freak out.
Windows 7 finally brings the ability to actually use windows effectively without being administrator and without getting asked for your permission to allow something every 6 seconds.
This is a very Good Thing(TM).You've had plenty of time to test for incompatibilities, and if you haven't done it yet start now; Win7 beta is freely available for you to test with right now, I think you'll find most things work fine.
As a side note, if you find some legacy apps that don't play with Windows 7, a good workaround to get the abilities of windows 7 while still using that app is throwing it in a VM.
Not painless but better than sticking with a dead OS.If you truly want the internet to be a safer place then you should want XP gone as quickly as possible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352649</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>n30na</author>
	<datestamp>1245142920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The ribbon isnt that bad of an idea, except they got rid of the menus.  I bet it works great if you've never used office before.. its just we know where everything was in the menus, so its a nightmare trying to figure out where the heck they put things.  It wouldnt be so bad if they just ASKED which one you wanted.  Newer users probably do fine with the bloody ribbon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ribbon isnt that bad of an idea , except they got rid of the menus .
I bet it works great if you 've never used office before.. its just we know where everything was in the menus , so its a nightmare trying to figure out where the heck they put things .
It wouldnt be so bad if they just ASKED which one you wanted .
Newer users probably do fine with the bloody ribbon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ribbon isnt that bad of an idea, except they got rid of the menus.
I bet it works great if you've never used office before.. its just we know where everything was in the menus, so its a nightmare trying to figure out where the heck they put things.
It wouldnt be so bad if they just ASKED which one you wanted.
Newer users probably do fine with the bloody ribbon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352197</id>
	<title>Not a big deal?</title>
	<author>weszz</author>
	<datestamp>1245184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>from reading TFA (amazing I know) it sounded like if you have a volume license, no big deal. This would only effect shops buying OEM licenses...</p><p>am I wrong on this? It's what the graphic with and without software assurance says...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from reading TFA ( amazing I know ) it sounded like if you have a volume license , no big deal .
This would only effect shops buying OEM licenses...am I wrong on this ?
It 's what the graphic with and without software assurance says.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from reading TFA (amazing I know) it sounded like if you have a volume license, no big deal.
This would only effect shops buying OEM licenses...am I wrong on this?
It's what the graphic with and without software assurance says...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352749</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1245143340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which <strong>trolls, Microsoft fanbois and astroturfers/shills</strong> continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can</p></div><p>FTFY</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which trolls , Microsoft fanbois and astroturfers/shills continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity , and now they 're incorporating it into every damn program they canFTFY</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which trolls, Microsoft fanbois and astroturfers/shills continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they canFTFY
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352289</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>cdrudge</author>
	<datestamp>1245184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your software license rep doesn't know about software assurance, run, don't walk to someone else.  Any authorized Microsoft license rep that manages Open, Open Value, Select, or Enterprise Licensing should know about <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/software-assurance/default.aspx" title="microsoft.com">software assurance</a> [microsoft.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your software license rep does n't know about software assurance , run , do n't walk to someone else .
Any authorized Microsoft license rep that manages Open , Open Value , Select , or Enterprise Licensing should know about software assurance [ microsoft.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your software license rep doesn't know about software assurance, run, don't walk to someone else.
Any authorized Microsoft license rep that manages Open, Open Value, Select, or Enterprise Licensing should know about software assurance [microsoft.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352815</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>tsstahl</author>
	<datestamp>1245143700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I will, but you need at least a 100 seats to qualify.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will , but you need at least a 100 seats to qualify .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will, but you need at least a 100 seats to qualify.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352735</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Prof.Phreak</author>
	<datestamp>1245143340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet despite all that, I still see developers flocking towards their new offerings<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet despite all that , I still see developers flocking towards their new offerings : -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet despite all that, I still see developers flocking towards their new offerings :-/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352631</id>
	<title>Re:Geeks Care, Users Don't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245142860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used to think Word 6.0 (in Office 4.something) was the pinnacle of business software. Still prefer it to OOo though. Hehehehe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to think Word 6.0 ( in Office 4.something ) was the pinnacle of business software .
Still prefer it to OOo though .
Hehehehe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to think Word 6.0 (in Office 4.something) was the pinnacle of business software.
Still prefer it to OOo though.
Hehehehe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352655</id>
	<title>Theres only one thing to say about that</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1245142920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!<br>
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!<br>
<br> <br>
I love Linux and my Mac</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ! ! !
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ! ! !
I love Linux and my Mac</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!
I love Linux and my Mac</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28538925</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246387320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to know a vendor who could provide ms software in the only right way to acquire it, but sadly pirate bay was just sold so your S.O.L.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to know a vendor who could provide ms software in the only right way to acquire it , but sadly pirate bay was just sold so your S.O.L .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to know a vendor who could provide ms software in the only right way to acquire it, but sadly pirate bay was just sold so your S.O.L.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</id>
	<title>$90 per year per pc?  Really?</title>
	<author>tacokill</author>
	<datestamp>1245184140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this number right?   For $90/yr/pc, I can install any MSFT operating system?
<br>
<br>
Why isn't this program publicized?  I am a small business and I have to tell you...the entire Windows licensing system is very very difficult to navigate.  And I am 100\% certain that is "by design".   The more confused they can make me, the more money they can extract out of me and my company (or so they think).
<br>
<br>
In actual practice, I don't mind spending money where needed and $90/yr/pc seems about fair for a Windows OS.
<br>
<br>
Bonus points if someone can point me to a vendor who will sell it to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this number right ?
For $ 90/yr/pc , I can install any MSFT operating system ?
Why is n't this program publicized ?
I am a small business and I have to tell you...the entire Windows licensing system is very very difficult to navigate .
And I am 100 \ % certain that is " by design " .
The more confused they can make me , the more money they can extract out of me and my company ( or so they think ) .
In actual practice , I do n't mind spending money where needed and $ 90/yr/pc seems about fair for a Windows OS .
Bonus points if someone can point me to a vendor who will sell it to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this number right?
For $90/yr/pc, I can install any MSFT operating system?
Why isn't this program publicized?
I am a small business and I have to tell you...the entire Windows licensing system is very very difficult to navigate.
And I am 100\% certain that is "by design".
The more confused they can make me, the more money they can extract out of me and my company (or so they think).
In actual practice, I don't mind spending money where needed and $90/yr/pc seems about fair for a Windows OS.
Bonus points if someone can point me to a vendor who will sell it to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245185040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you actually read what's written...MSDN is for testing and dev only.

hence the:
"Software testers or IT professionals who need to set up test labs with Microsoft operating systems, but do not need additional products.
Example: Test or IT staff at a video card manufacturer needs to set up a lab for testing drivers on multiple versions of Windows."


If you install MSDN OS in your shop in production and MS knocks on your door...you'll find yourself in court in a snap of a finger.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...it happened to us last year</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you actually read what 's written...MSDN is for testing and dev only .
hence the : " Software testers or IT professionals who need to set up test labs with Microsoft operating systems , but do not need additional products .
Example : Test or IT staff at a video card manufacturer needs to set up a lab for testing drivers on multiple versions of Windows .
" If you install MSDN OS in your shop in production and MS knocks on your door...you 'll find yourself in court in a snap of a finger .
...it happened to us last year</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you actually read what's written...MSDN is for testing and dev only.
hence the:
"Software testers or IT professionals who need to set up test labs with Microsoft operating systems, but do not need additional products.
Example: Test or IT staff at a video card manufacturer needs to set up a lab for testing drivers on multiple versions of Windows.
"


If you install MSDN OS in your shop in production and MS knocks on your door...you'll find yourself in court in a snap of a finger.
...it happened to us last year</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356165</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1245160620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...last I heard it was the cost of the license with no discounts + (3*the cost of the license with no discounts) per machine...</p></div><p>Wouldn't that just be 4 * (The cost of one license)?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...last I heard it was the cost of the license with no discounts + ( 3 * the cost of the license with no discounts ) per machine...Would n't that just be 4 * ( The cost of one license ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...last I heard it was the cost of the license with no discounts + (3*the cost of the license with no discounts) per machine...Wouldn't that just be 4 * (The cost of one license)?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352949</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>AliasMarlowe</author>
	<datestamp>1245144180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For my next trick, I'll compare the state of Ubuntu circa 2002</p></div><p>Since the first version of Ubuntu was in 2004 (Warty Warthog), that would be quite a feat.<br> <br>
I installed Warty, and it was a bit rough on a Sony VAIO laptop. However, the following version (Breezy Badger) installed and found everything and configured the wireless network, display, bluetooth, etc. just dandy. We dual-booted Breezy with XP, but when Dapper Drake arrived I got rid of XP for good.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For my next trick , I 'll compare the state of Ubuntu circa 2002Since the first version of Ubuntu was in 2004 ( Warty Warthog ) , that would be quite a feat .
I installed Warty , and it was a bit rough on a Sony VAIO laptop .
However , the following version ( Breezy Badger ) installed and found everything and configured the wireless network , display , bluetooth , etc .
just dandy .
We dual-booted Breezy with XP , but when Dapper Drake arrived I got rid of XP for good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For my next trick, I'll compare the state of Ubuntu circa 2002Since the first version of Ubuntu was in 2004 (Warty Warthog), that would be quite a feat.
I installed Warty, and it was a bit rough on a Sony VAIO laptop.
However, the following version (Breezy Badger) installed and found everything and configured the wireless network, display, bluetooth, etc.
just dandy.
We dual-booted Breezy with XP, but when Dapper Drake arrived I got rid of XP for good.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352429</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356175</id>
	<title>We have 6 computers at home, that sounds nuts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245160680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two desktops (one is 8 year old), two laptops (one is a Thinkpad T21), two netbooks in our house.</p><p>I think charging almost 100 bucks per computer sounds a little insane.</p><p>I</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two desktops ( one is 8 year old ) , two laptops ( one is a Thinkpad T21 ) , two netbooks in our house.I think charging almost 100 bucks per computer sounds a little insane.I</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two desktops (one is 8 year old), two laptops (one is a Thinkpad T21), two netbooks in our house.I think charging almost 100 bucks per computer sounds a little insane.I</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355045</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a small tech shop, then instead of wrongly looking at MSDN, then gaining partner status and the "Action Pack" is a bargain.  10 seats of pretty much all Microsoft end-user / server Software to use, plus the possibility of extending beyond the 10 seats buy purchasing regular priced CALs.</p><p>Jason</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a small tech shop , then instead of wrongly looking at MSDN , then gaining partner status and the " Action Pack " is a bargain .
10 seats of pretty much all Microsoft end-user / server Software to use , plus the possibility of extending beyond the 10 seats buy purchasing regular priced CALs.Jason</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a small tech shop, then instead of wrongly looking at MSDN, then gaining partner status and the "Action Pack" is a bargain.
10 seats of pretty much all Microsoft end-user / server Software to use, plus the possibility of extending beyond the 10 seats buy purchasing regular priced CALs.Jason</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352249</id>
	<title>ROI</title>
	<author>Un pobre guey</author>
	<datestamp>1245184560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's worth wondering if it isn't cheaper over the medium and long term to just start upgrading to Windows 7 in phases as soon as it comes out. First to users that have shown the least need for hand-holding, then at an ever faster pace to users in ascending order of needyness. The XP/Vista options do not look cheaper or any more attractive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's worth wondering if it is n't cheaper over the medium and long term to just start upgrading to Windows 7 in phases as soon as it comes out .
First to users that have shown the least need for hand-holding , then at an ever faster pace to users in ascending order of needyness .
The XP/Vista options do not look cheaper or any more attractive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's worth wondering if it isn't cheaper over the medium and long term to just start upgrading to Windows 7 in phases as soon as it comes out.
First to users that have shown the least need for hand-holding, then at an ever faster pace to users in ascending order of needyness.
The XP/Vista options do not look cheaper or any more attractive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358133</id>
	<title>Windows 7 is awesome anyway!</title>
	<author>gurugarzah</author>
	<datestamp>1245179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who cares! whine complain "act sympathetic for BIG businesses" who don't want to upgrade. It is 2009, If you had a business writing software, I think/know it would become difficult to support something you wrote 7 years ago. IMO Windows 7 is a redeemer for certain. As I write this from my Macbook!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who cares !
whine complain " act sympathetic for BIG businesses " who do n't want to upgrade .
It is 2009 , If you had a business writing software , I think/know it would become difficult to support something you wrote 7 years ago .
IMO Windows 7 is a redeemer for certain .
As I write this from my Macbook !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who cares!
whine complain "act sympathetic for BIG businesses" who don't want to upgrade.
It is 2009, If you had a business writing software, I think/know it would become difficult to support something you wrote 7 years ago.
IMO Windows 7 is a redeemer for certain.
As I write this from my Macbook!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28360233</id>
	<title>Re:XP Support forever</title>
	<author>lordandmaker</author>
	<datestamp>1245246180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.<br> <br>

Irrespective of how they got there, MS are in a damned-if-they-do,-damned-if-they-don't position at the minute, much as they were with IE8.<br> <br>

It is widely acknowledged that WinXP is insecure by default. Sure, it's possible to make it more secure, but the vast bulk of its userbase don't. <br> <br>

MS are therefore, quite rightly, under pressure to remove the insecure WinXP installs from the internet. They can go one of two ways:<br> <br>

1) Force updates to XP that make it more secure. Aside from flogging a bit of a dead horse, this would just lead to less and less well integrated updates. XP was never intended to be significantly changed by updates, that's just not the way Windows works. And users neither expect nor want an update to suddenly rob them of the ability to run as an administrator.<br> <br>

2) Force users to upgrade from XP to a newer OS. This gets everyone on a more recently designed OS, which actually follows some kind of security principles, reduces the need to develop things for multiple Windows platforms (software, training, support) and makes it easier for MS to keep up with updates (two products rather than three).<br> <br>

MS were, IMO, uncharacteristically 'nice' in their acceptance that everyone would rather have XP than Vista, and so let people carry on with XP. From what I gather, there is far wider support for Windows 7 than there was for Vista, and MS seem to have fixed a lot of the things they broke with Vista. <br> <br>

I can understand the distaste at allowing downgrades to Vista, but I really can't understand a desire to keep XP boxes going any longer than is absolutely necessary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Irrespective of how they got there , MS are in a damned-if-they-do,-damned-if-they-do n't position at the minute , much as they were with IE8 .
It is widely acknowledged that WinXP is insecure by default .
Sure , it 's possible to make it more secure , but the vast bulk of its userbase do n't .
MS are therefore , quite rightly , under pressure to remove the insecure WinXP installs from the internet .
They can go one of two ways : 1 ) Force updates to XP that make it more secure .
Aside from flogging a bit of a dead horse , this would just lead to less and less well integrated updates .
XP was never intended to be significantly changed by updates , that 's just not the way Windows works .
And users neither expect nor want an update to suddenly rob them of the ability to run as an administrator .
2 ) Force users to upgrade from XP to a newer OS .
This gets everyone on a more recently designed OS , which actually follows some kind of security principles , reduces the need to develop things for multiple Windows platforms ( software , training , support ) and makes it easier for MS to keep up with updates ( two products rather than three ) .
MS were , IMO , uncharacteristically 'nice ' in their acceptance that everyone would rather have XP than Vista , and so let people carry on with XP .
From what I gather , there is far wider support for Windows 7 than there was for Vista , and MS seem to have fixed a lot of the things they broke with Vista .
I can understand the distaste at allowing downgrades to Vista , but I really ca n't understand a desire to keep XP boxes going any longer than is absolutely necessary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Irrespective of how they got there, MS are in a damned-if-they-do,-damned-if-they-don't position at the minute, much as they were with IE8.
It is widely acknowledged that WinXP is insecure by default.
Sure, it's possible to make it more secure, but the vast bulk of its userbase don't.
MS are therefore, quite rightly, under pressure to remove the insecure WinXP installs from the internet.
They can go one of two ways: 

1) Force updates to XP that make it more secure.
Aside from flogging a bit of a dead horse, this would just lead to less and less well integrated updates.
XP was never intended to be significantly changed by updates, that's just not the way Windows works.
And users neither expect nor want an update to suddenly rob them of the ability to run as an administrator.
2) Force users to upgrade from XP to a newer OS.
This gets everyone on a more recently designed OS, which actually follows some kind of security principles, reduces the need to develop things for multiple Windows platforms (software, training, support) and makes it easier for MS to keep up with updates (two products rather than three).
MS were, IMO, uncharacteristically 'nice' in their acceptance that everyone would rather have XP than Vista, and so let people carry on with XP.
From what I gather, there is far wider support for Windows 7 than there was for Vista, and MS seem to have fixed a lot of the things they broke with Vista.
I can understand the distaste at allowing downgrades to Vista, but I really can't understand a desire to keep XP boxes going any longer than is absolutely necessary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356289</id>
	<title>Re:Software vs. Hardware support - A Realistic Vie</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1245161640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This "Assurance" is bullshit. XP WILL die eventually, and it will be due to the hardware vendors not writing drivers anymore, not because Microsoft has "assured" you by taking your money. It's already getting difficult to find XP driver support for new hardware out there TODAY, much less 12 - 24 months from now when businesses will still be looking to run XP.</p></div><p>Sounds to me like the best solution there in 3 years, where according to Murphy our desktop machines will be 4x 8 core CPUs with 2gb vram, 24gb system ram sitting on 4-5 TB of storage space in one drive bay...  The best method to stick with our current software is to run a stripped down Linux install who's only job is to run a VMware (or similar technology) hypervisor with 64 windows xp machines running within it.</p><p>In virtual machines, drivers use hardware, not the other way around.  There is right now virtual hardware with XP drivers.  That virtual hardware API *NEVER* has to change, thus the driver already made for XP long ago will still work.</p><p>It's going to be next to impossible to morally argue pirating XP after microsoft has refused to take our money for it for years despite offering payment.</p><p>If it wasn't for their license scheme making this prohibitively unfordable, would have been an ideal setup Now, and we have had the technology for some time, with only Microsofts greed being in the way.</p><p>But you are correct for the long term.  XP will die off eventually, because something better will take its place.  With enough time passing, backwards compatibility will be less and less important.  It is guaranteed to happen, only the when is in question.</p><p>But we will have no problems even a decade from now, let alone the 12 - 24 months you imply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This " Assurance " is bullshit .
XP WILL die eventually , and it will be due to the hardware vendors not writing drivers anymore , not because Microsoft has " assured " you by taking your money .
It 's already getting difficult to find XP driver support for new hardware out there TODAY , much less 12 - 24 months from now when businesses will still be looking to run XP.Sounds to me like the best solution there in 3 years , where according to Murphy our desktop machines will be 4x 8 core CPUs with 2gb vram , 24gb system ram sitting on 4-5 TB of storage space in one drive bay... The best method to stick with our current software is to run a stripped down Linux install who 's only job is to run a VMware ( or similar technology ) hypervisor with 64 windows xp machines running within it.In virtual machines , drivers use hardware , not the other way around .
There is right now virtual hardware with XP drivers .
That virtual hardware API * NEVER * has to change , thus the driver already made for XP long ago will still work.It 's going to be next to impossible to morally argue pirating XP after microsoft has refused to take our money for it for years despite offering payment.If it was n't for their license scheme making this prohibitively unfordable , would have been an ideal setup Now , and we have had the technology for some time , with only Microsofts greed being in the way.But you are correct for the long term .
XP will die off eventually , because something better will take its place .
With enough time passing , backwards compatibility will be less and less important .
It is guaranteed to happen , only the when is in question.But we will have no problems even a decade from now , let alone the 12 - 24 months you imply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This "Assurance" is bullshit.
XP WILL die eventually, and it will be due to the hardware vendors not writing drivers anymore, not because Microsoft has "assured" you by taking your money.
It's already getting difficult to find XP driver support for new hardware out there TODAY, much less 12 - 24 months from now when businesses will still be looking to run XP.Sounds to me like the best solution there in 3 years, where according to Murphy our desktop machines will be 4x 8 core CPUs with 2gb vram, 24gb system ram sitting on 4-5 TB of storage space in one drive bay...  The best method to stick with our current software is to run a stripped down Linux install who's only job is to run a VMware (or similar technology) hypervisor with 64 windows xp machines running within it.In virtual machines, drivers use hardware, not the other way around.
There is right now virtual hardware with XP drivers.
That virtual hardware API *NEVER* has to change, thus the driver already made for XP long ago will still work.It's going to be next to impossible to morally argue pirating XP after microsoft has refused to take our money for it for years despite offering payment.If it wasn't for their license scheme making this prohibitively unfordable, would have been an ideal setup Now, and we have had the technology for some time, with only Microsofts greed being in the way.But you are correct for the long term.
XP will die off eventually, because something better will take its place.
With enough time passing, backwards compatibility will be less and less important.
It is guaranteed to happen, only the when is in question.But we will have no problems even a decade from now, let alone the 12 - 24 months you imply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119</id>
	<title>Downgrade then Upgrade... sigh...</title>
	<author>decipher\_saint</author>
	<datestamp>1245184140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about just "Sell XP Licenses" or is that too easy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about just " Sell XP Licenses " or is that too easy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about just "Sell XP Licenses" or is that too easy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354045</id>
	<title>Re:Software vs. Hardware support - A Realistic Vie</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1245148560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is not the driver that cause upgrades for many users.  Many people are like me.  My MS Windows machines are bought for a specific applications.  The machine cost a fraction of the application.  The OS changes when the application requires it, not when the OS vendor wants more money.  I ran Windows NT until I no longer needed it for the application I was running.  For a while I had no MS machines because I was running nothing that required it.  When I did, I upgraded to Windows XP.  I recently acquired another machine running XP.  The application did not require MS Vista, so there is no reason for IT to support MS Vista.  The 2010 versions of the software, which will be installed in July, still runs on Windows XP.  That means perhaps 2012 before an MS windows upgrade even becomes an issue. By then I suspect we will be seeing MS Windows Upgrade Or Else Edition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not the driver that cause upgrades for many users .
Many people are like me .
My MS Windows machines are bought for a specific applications .
The machine cost a fraction of the application .
The OS changes when the application requires it , not when the OS vendor wants more money .
I ran Windows NT until I no longer needed it for the application I was running .
For a while I had no MS machines because I was running nothing that required it .
When I did , I upgraded to Windows XP .
I recently acquired another machine running XP .
The application did not require MS Vista , so there is no reason for IT to support MS Vista .
The 2010 versions of the software , which will be installed in July , still runs on Windows XP .
That means perhaps 2012 before an MS windows upgrade even becomes an issue .
By then I suspect we will be seeing MS Windows Upgrade Or Else Edition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not the driver that cause upgrades for many users.
Many people are like me.
My MS Windows machines are bought for a specific applications.
The machine cost a fraction of the application.
The OS changes when the application requires it, not when the OS vendor wants more money.
I ran Windows NT until I no longer needed it for the application I was running.
For a while I had no MS machines because I was running nothing that required it.
When I did, I upgraded to Windows XP.
I recently acquired another machine running XP.
The application did not require MS Vista, so there is no reason for IT to support MS Vista.
The 2010 versions of the software, which will be installed in July, still runs on Windows XP.
That means perhaps 2012 before an MS windows upgrade even becomes an issue.
By then I suspect we will be seeing MS Windows Upgrade Or Else Edition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352807</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1245143700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Released THE most hated OS since WinMe</p></div><p>I'm pretty sure vista was far more hated than ME, though ME deserved it a lot more.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Released THE most hated OS since WinMeI 'm pretty sure vista was far more hated than ME , though ME deserved it a lot more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Released THE most hated OS since WinMeI'm pretty sure vista was far more hated than ME, though ME deserved it a lot more.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354135</id>
	<title>MS already solved this issue</title>
	<author>angelwolf71885</author>
	<datestamp>1245148980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>xp mode is FREE and solves this ENTIRE issue</htmltext>
<tokenext>xp mode is FREE and solves this ENTIRE issue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xp mode is FREE and solves this ENTIRE issue</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352503</id>
	<title>Re:Downgrade then Upgrade... sigh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245185460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they sell XP licenses then they can't boast about how many copies of the latest version of Windows has been sold to try and get people to hop on the bandwagon when, in fact, the majority of those purchases weren't to use the latest version at all.  They have been trying to pull the same tactic with Vista to try and convince people that Vista is infinitely better than XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they sell XP licenses then they ca n't boast about how many copies of the latest version of Windows has been sold to try and get people to hop on the bandwagon when , in fact , the majority of those purchases were n't to use the latest version at all .
They have been trying to pull the same tactic with Vista to try and convince people that Vista is infinitely better than XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they sell XP licenses then they can't boast about how many copies of the latest version of Windows has been sold to try and get people to hop on the bandwagon when, in fact, the majority of those purchases weren't to use the latest version at all.
They have been trying to pull the same tactic with Vista to try and convince people that Vista is infinitely better than XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357455</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>minvaren</author>
	<datestamp>1245171000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Chair.  Drunk at the chair.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Chair .
Drunk at the chair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chair.
Drunk at the chair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</id>
	<title>Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"A method of automatically loading a weapon for repeatedly and regularly firing at one's foot without breaking the rythm".</p><p>Microsoft has in the last couple of years:</p><p>- Released THE most hated OS since WinMe</p><p>- Released a confusing myriad of versions of their latest OS' which seek to differentiate by feature set, ultimately pissing off any customer who buys or is forced by a hardware manufacturer to buy an inferior version of the OS only to find that they must upgrade to get important functionality enabled</p><p>- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can</p><p>- Fired their Aces game development team ending a long running franchise in flight simulation</p><p>- Put just about everyone off side with their nutty Windows Genuine campaign</p><p>- Fucked up their Zune software with date based bugs</p><p>It's like the captain of the ship's drunk at the helm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" A method of automatically loading a weapon for repeatedly and regularly firing at one 's foot without breaking the rythm " .Microsoft has in the last couple of years : - Released THE most hated OS since WinMe- Released a confusing myriad of versions of their latest OS ' which seek to differentiate by feature set , ultimately pissing off any customer who buys or is forced by a hardware manufacturer to buy an inferior version of the OS only to find that they must upgrade to get important functionality enabled- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity , and now they 're incorporating it into every damn program they can- Fired their Aces game development team ending a long running franchise in flight simulation- Put just about everyone off side with their nutty Windows Genuine campaign- Fucked up their Zune software with date based bugsIt 's like the captain of the ship 's drunk at the helm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"A method of automatically loading a weapon for repeatedly and regularly firing at one's foot without breaking the rythm".Microsoft has in the last couple of years:- Released THE most hated OS since WinMe- Released a confusing myriad of versions of their latest OS' which seek to differentiate by feature set, ultimately pissing off any customer who buys or is forced by a hardware manufacturer to buy an inferior version of the OS only to find that they must upgrade to get important functionality enabled- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can- Fired their Aces game development team ending a long running franchise in flight simulation- Put just about everyone off side with their nutty Windows Genuine campaign- Fucked up their Zune software with date based bugsIt's like the captain of the ship's drunk at the helm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352635</id>
	<title>Microsoft Will Cave</title>
	<author>Farmer Pete</author>
	<datestamp>1245142860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll bet 100 mod points that Windows XP will be available at least a year after Windows 7 release.  Microsoft barks a loud bark, but in the end, they tend to buckle under pressure from their biggest supporters.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet 100 mod points that Windows XP will be available at least a year after Windows 7 release .
Microsoft barks a loud bark , but in the end , they tend to buckle under pressure from their biggest supporters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet 100 mod points that Windows XP will be available at least a year after Windows 7 release.
Microsoft barks a loud bark, but in the end, they tend to buckle under pressure from their biggest supporters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355863</id>
	<title>Re:My entire shop is SuSE Linux</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245158700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if it was in quotes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if it was in quotes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if it was in quotes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352987</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Necroloth</author>
	<datestamp>1245144300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can</p></div><p>It's your opinion that it's not great yet you admit there are those that find it easy to use... ever thought you were the problem?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity , and now they 're incorporating it into every damn program they canIt 's your opinion that it 's not great yet you admit there are those that find it easy to use... ever thought you were the problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they canIt's your opinion that it's not great yet you admit there are those that find it easy to use... ever thought you were the problem?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For $699 you can install any Microsoft OS on as many machines as you own for one year. Then after that it's $499 per year.</p><p><a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/subscriptionschart.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/subscriptionschart.aspx</a> [microsoft.com] (scroll down to "MSDN Operating Systems")</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For $ 699 you can install any Microsoft OS on as many machines as you own for one year .
Then after that it 's $ 499 per year.http : //msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/subscriptionschart.aspx [ microsoft.com ] ( scroll down to " MSDN Operating Systems " )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For $699 you can install any Microsoft OS on as many machines as you own for one year.
Then after that it's $499 per year.http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/subscriptionschart.aspx [microsoft.com] (scroll down to "MSDN Operating Systems")</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354663</id>
	<title>Re:HOLY FUCK</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1245151740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You mean if i'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading</p></div></blockquote><p>

You know, this argument would hold up a lot better if XP weren't the newest OS from MS for 2001-2006.  That's 5 years.  Right, the OS is ancient by computing standards but MS basically sat on its hands for that time while conspicuously not releasing any new OSes for an eternity.  Points of comparison: from the time XP was released to the time Vista was release, Apple released 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, &amp; 10.4.  The linux kernel went from 2.4.0 to 2.4.33 and from 2.6.0 to 2.6.18 (BTW, linux still is releasing patches for the 2.4 series kernel that was released in 2001, same as XP).  Redhat released Fedora core 1 in 2003, and it was followed by cores 1-6 in that time, and even Debian released woody and sarge.<br> <br>The point is that when you talk about how old XP is, what you are really doing is pointing out how slow MS's development cycle was, and still would be if Vista weren't such a failure.  I'll give you that the service packs were big increases in functionality, but companies like apple increase functionality in their service packs as well, in addition to releasing new OSes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean if i 'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading You know , this argument would hold up a lot better if XP were n't the newest OS from MS for 2001-2006 .
That 's 5 years .
Right , the OS is ancient by computing standards but MS basically sat on its hands for that time while conspicuously not releasing any new OSes for an eternity .
Points of comparison : from the time XP was released to the time Vista was release , Apple released 10.1 , 10.2 , 10.3 , &amp; 10.4 .
The linux kernel went from 2.4.0 to 2.4.33 and from 2.6.0 to 2.6.18 ( BTW , linux still is releasing patches for the 2.4 series kernel that was released in 2001 , same as XP ) .
Redhat released Fedora core 1 in 2003 , and it was followed by cores 1-6 in that time , and even Debian released woody and sarge .
The point is that when you talk about how old XP is , what you are really doing is pointing out how slow MS 's development cycle was , and still would be if Vista were n't such a failure .
I 'll give you that the service packs were big increases in functionality , but companies like apple increase functionality in their service packs as well , in addition to releasing new OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean if i'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading

You know, this argument would hold up a lot better if XP weren't the newest OS from MS for 2001-2006.
That's 5 years.
Right, the OS is ancient by computing standards but MS basically sat on its hands for that time while conspicuously not releasing any new OSes for an eternity.
Points of comparison: from the time XP was released to the time Vista was release, Apple released 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, &amp; 10.4.
The linux kernel went from 2.4.0 to 2.4.33 and from 2.6.0 to 2.6.18 (BTW, linux still is releasing patches for the 2.4 series kernel that was released in 2001, same as XP).
Redhat released Fedora core 1 in 2003, and it was followed by cores 1-6 in that time, and even Debian released woody and sarge.
The point is that when you talk about how old XP is, what you are really doing is pointing out how slow MS's development cycle was, and still would be if Vista weren't such a failure.
I'll give you that the service packs were big increases in functionality, but companies like apple increase functionality in their service packs as well, in addition to releasing new OSes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354485</id>
	<title>Re:HOLY FUCK</title>
	<author>papershark</author>
	<datestamp>1245150780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just some random thought's on the matter that are barely strung together.<br><br>It is a strange problem when people clearly want to buy new technology, but they don't want new software on it.<br><br>I had this 12 year old car, it had a lot of problems... but I knew how to deal with every problem that came up, and and i just never could get used to the idea of changing it for a car that was 6 years old. It may have half the problems... but if they were unfamiliar they they take forever to fix.<br><br>Getting rid of the car would mean getting rid of the useful knowledge that I had.<br><br>I think that MS are making a mistake in the way that they are continuing to monetise their software.  the everyday the os and office is as essential as the office chair. Essential, but by no means should it cost &amp;#194;&amp;pound;500, and yet more to upgrade down the line.<br><br>If I were in an the boardroom at MS I would be trying to think or way of keeping the gravy train running for as long as i can.<br><br>In the end, the computers you do business on will be like the portable radios that buy on holiday and you don't care when you drop it in the pool.<br><br>In my neck of the woods... the next battle will be lost for MS when when Google Docs word processor gets an outline mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just some random thought 's on the matter that are barely strung together.It is a strange problem when people clearly want to buy new technology , but they do n't want new software on it.I had this 12 year old car , it had a lot of problems... but I knew how to deal with every problem that came up , and and i just never could get used to the idea of changing it for a car that was 6 years old .
It may have half the problems... but if they were unfamiliar they they take forever to fix.Getting rid of the car would mean getting rid of the useful knowledge that I had.I think that MS are making a mistake in the way that they are continuing to monetise their software .
the everyday the os and office is as essential as the office chair .
Essential , but by no means should it cost     500 , and yet more to upgrade down the line.If I were in an the boardroom at MS I would be trying to think or way of keeping the gravy train running for as long as i can.In the end , the computers you do business on will be like the portable radios that buy on holiday and you do n't care when you drop it in the pool.In my neck of the woods... the next battle will be lost for MS when when Google Docs word processor gets an outline mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just some random thought's on the matter that are barely strung together.It is a strange problem when people clearly want to buy new technology, but they don't want new software on it.I had this 12 year old car, it had a lot of problems... but I knew how to deal with every problem that came up, and and i just never could get used to the idea of changing it for a car that was 6 years old.
It may have half the problems... but if they were unfamiliar they they take forever to fix.Getting rid of the car would mean getting rid of the useful knowledge that I had.I think that MS are making a mistake in the way that they are continuing to monetise their software.
the everyday the os and office is as essential as the office chair.
Essential, but by no means should it cost Â£500, and yet more to upgrade down the line.If I were in an the boardroom at MS I would be trying to think or way of keeping the gravy train running for as long as i can.In the end, the computers you do business on will be like the portable radios that buy on holiday and you don't care when you drop it in the pool.In my neck of the woods... the next battle will be lost for MS when when Google Docs word processor gets an outline mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354415</id>
	<title>Re:Software vs. Hardware support - A Realistic Vie</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245150360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bullshit.</p><p>Name one (1, one, uno) consumer peripherial/motherboard/piece of hardware in the marketplace NOW that doesn't have XP driver support.</p><p>I dare you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bullshit.Name one ( 1 , one , uno ) consumer peripherial/motherboard/piece of hardware in the marketplace NOW that does n't have XP driver support.I dare you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bullshit.Name one (1, one, uno) consumer peripherial/motherboard/piece of hardware in the marketplace NOW that doesn't have XP driver support.I dare you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353523</id>
	<title>Migrate to Mac</title>
	<author>macdaddy357</author>
	<datestamp>1245146280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget Windows forever. Next time your office needs new computers, migrate to Mac.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget Windows forever .
Next time your office needs new computers , migrate to Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget Windows forever.
Next time your office needs new computers, migrate to Mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355037</id>
	<title>Re:The power of lock-in</title>
	<author>maugle</author>
	<datestamp>1245154020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If we ever hit the magical Year of the Linux Desktop, where ordinary users suddenly switch to Linux in droves, it'll be due to Linux's strengths, not Microsoft's mistakes.  Proclaiming that the Linux Revolution is upon us every time Microsoft slips up will only make you look silly.<br> <br>On a side note, the year of the Linux desktop was about 3 years ago for me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If we ever hit the magical Year of the Linux Desktop , where ordinary users suddenly switch to Linux in droves , it 'll be due to Linux 's strengths , not Microsoft 's mistakes .
Proclaiming that the Linux Revolution is upon us every time Microsoft slips up will only make you look silly .
On a side note , the year of the Linux desktop was about 3 years ago for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we ever hit the magical Year of the Linux Desktop, where ordinary users suddenly switch to Linux in droves, it'll be due to Linux's strengths, not Microsoft's mistakes.
Proclaiming that the Linux Revolution is upon us every time Microsoft slips up will only make you look silly.
On a side note, the year of the Linux desktop was about 3 years ago for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352285</id>
	<title>"laser"</title>
	<author>Twillerror</author>
	<datestamp>1245184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My fingers are up in the air when I read "disaster". At least SD is trying to let you know when a title is being over dramatic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My fingers are up in the air when I read " disaster " .
At least SD is trying to let you know when a title is being over dramatic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My fingers are up in the air when I read "disaster".
At least SD is trying to let you know when a title is being over dramatic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353709</id>
	<title>Re:My entire shop is SuSE Linux</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245147000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, using boxen in a sentence is cause for automatic suspension of your nerd license.</p></div><p>Your nerd license is hereby suspended.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , using boxen in a sentence is cause for automatic suspension of your nerd license.Your nerd license is hereby suspended .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, using boxen in a sentence is cause for automatic suspension of your nerd license.Your nerd license is hereby suspended.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355737</id>
	<title>Re:same old</title>
	<author>Celeste R</author>
	<datestamp>1245157860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>We want out of the M$ revenue tree...<br>Just code something that works and we'll pay for the patches/upgrades.<br>Stop trying to sell us new stuff that just takes up more CPU cycles for no good reason.<br>This industry is going nowhere fast.</p></div><p>Another Penguin worshipper has been born!  First, I'll find him Gentoo......  oh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want out of the M $ revenue tree...Just code something that works and we 'll pay for the patches/upgrades.Stop trying to sell us new stuff that just takes up more CPU cycles for no good reason.This industry is going nowhere fast.Another Penguin worshipper has been born !
First , I 'll find him Gentoo...... oh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want out of the M$ revenue tree...Just code something that works and we'll pay for the patches/upgrades.Stop trying to sell us new stuff that just takes up more CPU cycles for no good reason.This industry is going nowhere fast.Another Penguin worshipper has been born!
First, I'll find him Gentoo......  oh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352811</id>
	<title>Re:My entire shop is SuSE Linux</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1245143700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet you could be running those regressions on GPUs for huge performance increases.</p><p>And if you used DirectX 11, you would be able to run that shit on Nvidia OR ATi hardware WITHOUT dealing with CUDA/Stream/OpenCL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet you could be running those regressions on GPUs for huge performance increases.And if you used DirectX 11 , you would be able to run that shit on Nvidia OR ATi hardware WITHOUT dealing with CUDA/Stream/OpenCL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet you could be running those regressions on GPUs for huge performance increases.And if you used DirectX 11, you would be able to run that shit on Nvidia OR ATi hardware WITHOUT dealing with CUDA/Stream/OpenCL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353341</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>RexCelestis</author>
	<datestamp>1245145620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can</p></div><p>Does anyone have any data for this? My experience in legal has been pretty much the opposite. While having a relatively big learning curve, anecdotal information points to an increase in productivity, particularly in Outlook and Word.

Thanks.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity , and now they 're incorporating it into every damn program they canDoes anyone have any data for this ?
My experience in legal has been pretty much the opposite .
While having a relatively big learning curve , anecdotal information points to an increase in productivity , particularly in Outlook and Word .
Thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they canDoes anyone have any data for this?
My experience in legal has been pretty much the opposite.
While having a relatively big learning curve, anecdotal information points to an increase in productivity, particularly in Outlook and Word.
Thanks.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353365</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Virmal</author>
	<datestamp>1245145680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the other hand, look at Apple.  Snow Leopard is only a $29 upgrade for a single license and a $59 upgrade for a family license.  There is only 1 Leopard version not the myriad of versions like Windoze, and Leopard kicks Windoze butt any given day.

Ballmer - stop eating beans, the hot air is showing up in all your products...</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , look at Apple .
Snow Leopard is only a $ 29 upgrade for a single license and a $ 59 upgrade for a family license .
There is only 1 Leopard version not the myriad of versions like Windoze , and Leopard kicks Windoze butt any given day .
Ballmer - stop eating beans , the hot air is showing up in all your products.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, look at Apple.
Snow Leopard is only a $29 upgrade for a single license and a $59 upgrade for a family license.
There is only 1 Leopard version not the myriad of versions like Windoze, and Leopard kicks Windoze butt any given day.
Ballmer - stop eating beans, the hot air is showing up in all your products...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358645</id>
	<title>Gartner says don't wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245270960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The delay for most orgs will be in doing app compat testing, there are ways to compress this using any or many of the very good products out there. Even Gartner recommends not waiting for SP1 for Windows 7 http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol5/article2/article2.html</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The delay for most orgs will be in doing app compat testing , there are ways to compress this using any or many of the very good products out there .
Even Gartner recommends not waiting for SP1 for Windows 7 http : //mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol5/article2/article2.html</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The delay for most orgs will be in doing app compat testing, there are ways to compress this using any or many of the very good products out there.
Even Gartner recommends not waiting for SP1 for Windows 7 http://mediaproducts.gartner.com/reprints/microsoft/vol5/article2/article2.html</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356795</id>
	<title>Re:The power of lock-in</title>
	<author>thatkid\_2002</author>
	<datestamp>1245165120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Year of the Linux Desktop was last year didn't you hear?</p><p>Run along and download a distro. If you are quick enough people won't even notice you are still using Windows</p><p> Get with the times boy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Year of the Linux Desktop was last year did n't you hear ? Run along and download a distro .
If you are quick enough people wo n't even notice you are still using Windows Get with the times boy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Year of the Linux Desktop was last year didn't you hear?Run along and download a distro.
If you are quick enough people won't even notice you are still using Windows Get with the times boy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352371</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>hmar</author>
	<datestamp>1245184980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check with CDW.com. They have MS licensing specialists. I think you will find, however, that there is a minimum number of PCs necessary to qualify for this program, which may be why no-one mentioned it to you before,</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check with CDW.com .
They have MS licensing specialists .
I think you will find , however , that there is a minimum number of PCs necessary to qualify for this program , which may be why no-one mentioned it to you before,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check with CDW.com.
They have MS licensing specialists.
I think you will find, however, that there is a minimum number of PCs necessary to qualify for this program, which may be why no-one mentioned it to you before,</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352151</id>
	<title>same old</title>
	<author>gx5000</author>
	<datestamp>1245184260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>We're on XP...<br>They are thinking of going Vista because of the 1 on 1 MS support we have.<br>Most techs here are well against any move away from XP...<br>Vista II or 7 depending what your take is is not an option.<br>We want out of the M$ revenue tree...<br>Just code something that works and we'll pay for the patches/upgrades.<br>Stop trying to sell us new stuff that just takes up more CPU cycles for no good reason.<br>This industry is going nowhere fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're on XP...They are thinking of going Vista because of the 1 on 1 MS support we have.Most techs here are well against any move away from XP...Vista II or 7 depending what your take is is not an option.We want out of the M $ revenue tree...Just code something that works and we 'll pay for the patches/upgrades.Stop trying to sell us new stuff that just takes up more CPU cycles for no good reason.This industry is going nowhere fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're on XP...They are thinking of going Vista because of the 1 on 1 MS support we have.Most techs here are well against any move away from XP...Vista II or 7 depending what your take is is not an option.We want out of the M$ revenue tree...Just code something that works and we'll pay for the patches/upgrades.Stop trying to sell us new stuff that just takes up more CPU cycles for no good reason.This industry is going nowhere fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353737</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1245147120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No, for $90/PC/year, plus the cost of the open license of Windows, you can run any Microsoft OS you want, technically all the way down to MS-DOS &amp; Windows 3.0.</p></div><p>Does it only work downwards, or upwards as well?</p><p>I.e. if you bought a PC with OEM XP, would you be able to pay $90/year and run any future Microsoft OS on that when they are released?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , for $ 90/PC/year , plus the cost of the open license of Windows , you can run any Microsoft OS you want , technically all the way down to MS-DOS &amp; Windows 3.0.Does it only work downwards , or upwards as well ? I.e .
if you bought a PC with OEM XP , would you be able to pay $ 90/year and run any future Microsoft OS on that when they are released ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, for $90/PC/year, plus the cost of the open license of Windows, you can run any Microsoft OS you want, technically all the way down to MS-DOS &amp; Windows 3.0.Does it only work downwards, or upwards as well?I.e.
if you bought a PC with OEM XP, would you be able to pay $90/year and run any future Microsoft OS on that when they are released?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352797</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1245143580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and yet for all of that, nobody else had been able to make much inroad. Hmmm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and yet for all of that , nobody else had been able to make much inroad .
Hmmm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and yet for all of that, nobody else had been able to make much inroad.
Hmmm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355911</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1245158940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>- Fucked up the sound sub-system even worse than it was 15 years ago</i></p><p>Don't see any evidence for that, but my mind is open. Please elaborate.</p><p><i>- Somehow turned into a religion of hate spouting zealots</i></p><p>There was always an abundance of people stubborn without social skills in the Linux community. That's the geek heritage coming through. It hasn't suddenly gotten worse. In fact I think it's been a little better of late (which is saying something)</p><p><i>- Released a confusing myriad of distributions and versions which absolutely make no sense</i></p><p>Yes the ability to fork and roll your own are both a strength and a weakness. They make no sense because there is more than one single goal and set of interests to satisfy. You are free to ignore all but one or two distros if you choose.</p><p><i>- Gotten Intel to release open source drivers yet still managed to fuck that up</i></p><p>How so? The drivers work or they don't.</p><p><i>- Forked GCC</i></p><p>See my words about multiple distros.</p><p><i>- Claim its greatest accomplishment is Compiz - Wobbly windows, woohoo!</i></p><p>Now you're being childish.</p><p><i>- Somehow manage to be WORSE off than it was in 1999</i></p><p>By what measure?</p><p><i>It's like the captain of the ship's drunk at the helm.</i></p><p>There isn't one captain or one helm. Comparing "Linux" to MS WIndows in this sense is silly. Linux is a myriad of different companies and distros. MS is one entity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- Fucked up the sound sub-system even worse than it was 15 years agoDo n't see any evidence for that , but my mind is open .
Please elaborate.- Somehow turned into a religion of hate spouting zealotsThere was always an abundance of people stubborn without social skills in the Linux community .
That 's the geek heritage coming through .
It has n't suddenly gotten worse .
In fact I think it 's been a little better of late ( which is saying something ) - Released a confusing myriad of distributions and versions which absolutely make no senseYes the ability to fork and roll your own are both a strength and a weakness .
They make no sense because there is more than one single goal and set of interests to satisfy .
You are free to ignore all but one or two distros if you choose.- Gotten Intel to release open source drivers yet still managed to fuck that upHow so ?
The drivers work or they do n't.- Forked GCCSee my words about multiple distros.- Claim its greatest accomplishment is Compiz - Wobbly windows , woohoo ! Now you 're being childish.- Somehow manage to be WORSE off than it was in 1999By what measure ? It 's like the captain of the ship 's drunk at the helm.There is n't one captain or one helm .
Comparing " Linux " to MS WIndows in this sense is silly .
Linux is a myriad of different companies and distros .
MS is one entity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>- Fucked up the sound sub-system even worse than it was 15 years agoDon't see any evidence for that, but my mind is open.
Please elaborate.- Somehow turned into a religion of hate spouting zealotsThere was always an abundance of people stubborn without social skills in the Linux community.
That's the geek heritage coming through.
It hasn't suddenly gotten worse.
In fact I think it's been a little better of late (which is saying something)- Released a confusing myriad of distributions and versions which absolutely make no senseYes the ability to fork and roll your own are both a strength and a weakness.
They make no sense because there is more than one single goal and set of interests to satisfy.
You are free to ignore all but one or two distros if you choose.- Gotten Intel to release open source drivers yet still managed to fuck that upHow so?
The drivers work or they don't.- Forked GCCSee my words about multiple distros.- Claim its greatest accomplishment is Compiz - Wobbly windows, woohoo!Now you're being childish.- Somehow manage to be WORSE off than it was in 1999By what measure?It's like the captain of the ship's drunk at the helm.There isn't one captain or one helm.
Comparing "Linux" to MS WIndows in this sense is silly.
Linux is a myriad of different companies and distros.
MS is one entity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353953</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352189</id>
	<title>explicit.bing.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the details of this will be filtered out of BING.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the details of this will be filtered out of BING .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the details of this will be filtered out of BING.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353067</id>
	<title>Re:The power of lock-in</title>
	<author>Anonymous Brave Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245144540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I rather doubt it will usher in The Year of Windows 7 on the Desktop either.</p><p>Or The Year of Vista on the Desktop, for that matter.</p><p>You would think that Microsoft would have learned after the Vista fiasco that their corporate clients aren't playing their game any more &mdash; and that was before the major financial crisis that means everyone's budget is seriously constrained. When the first major clients threaten to switch platforms, or just to delay their upgrade cycles indefinitely, Microsoft will cave.</p><p>Either that or they'll become the next casualty of the financial mess, anyway. As we've seen, no corporation is too big to go under in the current climate, and Microsoft's financial reserves (and the career expectancy of its executives) will shrink to a very low level if there's another Vista/Office 2007 PR disaster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I rather doubt it will usher in The Year of Windows 7 on the Desktop either.Or The Year of Vista on the Desktop , for that matter.You would think that Microsoft would have learned after the Vista fiasco that their corporate clients are n't playing their game any more    and that was before the major financial crisis that means everyone 's budget is seriously constrained .
When the first major clients threaten to switch platforms , or just to delay their upgrade cycles indefinitely , Microsoft will cave.Either that or they 'll become the next casualty of the financial mess , anyway .
As we 've seen , no corporation is too big to go under in the current climate , and Microsoft 's financial reserves ( and the career expectancy of its executives ) will shrink to a very low level if there 's another Vista/Office 2007 PR disaster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I rather doubt it will usher in The Year of Windows 7 on the Desktop either.Or The Year of Vista on the Desktop, for that matter.You would think that Microsoft would have learned after the Vista fiasco that their corporate clients aren't playing their game any more — and that was before the major financial crisis that means everyone's budget is seriously constrained.
When the first major clients threaten to switch platforms, or just to delay their upgrade cycles indefinitely, Microsoft will cave.Either that or they'll become the next casualty of the financial mess, anyway.
As we've seen, no corporation is too big to go under in the current climate, and Microsoft's financial reserves (and the career expectancy of its executives) will shrink to a very low level if there's another Vista/Office 2007 PR disaster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361335</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>zerocool^</author>
	<datestamp>1245252660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Headline:<br>Operating system that is 2 months old has more recent drivers than operating system that is 8 years old and has been attempted to be patched into the slipstream by a random 3rd party.</p><p>News at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Headline : Operating system that is 2 months old has more recent drivers than operating system that is 8 years old and has been attempted to be patched into the slipstream by a random 3rd party.News at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Headline:Operating system that is 2 months old has more recent drivers than operating system that is 8 years old and has been attempted to be patched into the slipstream by a random 3rd party.News at 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352103</id>
	<title>Love and kisses...</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1245184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More good will and love from Microsoft. Unfortunatly, for most of these "shops", Linux is not an option, as they are too entrenched with Ballmer and crew.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More good will and love from Microsoft .
Unfortunatly , for most of these " shops " , Linux is not an option , as they are too entrenched with Ballmer and crew .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More good will and love from Microsoft.
Unfortunatly, for most of these "shops", Linux is not an option, as they are too entrenched with Ballmer and crew.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352883</id>
	<title>Non-problem</title>
	<author>SlashV</author>
	<datestamp>1245144000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So this is a complete non-problem. OS cost $90 p/y, Person operating the PC cost $90/h. So why again is this the OS cost a problem ?
Reminds me of the HHG quote: "If a sentient being is to survive in a universe this big, one thing it cannot afford to have, is a sense of proportion.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So this is a complete non-problem .
OS cost $ 90 p/y , Person operating the PC cost $ 90/h .
So why again is this the OS cost a problem ?
Reminds me of the HHG quote : " If a sentient being is to survive in a universe this big , one thing it can not afford to have , is a sense of proportion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So this is a complete non-problem.
OS cost $90 p/y, Person operating the PC cost $90/h.
So why again is this the OS cost a problem ?
Reminds me of the HHG quote: "If a sentient being is to survive in a universe this big, one thing it cannot afford to have, is a sense of proportion.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356409</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>VTBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1245162540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>actually this is a really poorly written article full of gross errors.</p><p>Volume Licensing(VL) is not the same as  Software Assurance (SA).</p><p>OEM licenses die with a machine.  VLs can be moved and reused as long as the new machine came with an OEM license.  Think of VLs as a way to upgrade a limited and discounted OEM license.</p><p>VL customers can definitely use XP.  Most enterprises have VL agreements in place.  Those that don't should probably sack their IT department or switch to Linux.</p><p>Software Assurance which may or may not be included with a specific VL plan has numerous benefits including getting new versions of the software without paying anything extra i.e. you buy Vista VLs now with SA; when Win7 comes out, you get the upgrade to Win7 at no cost.</p><p>VLs can be outright purchases paid in full or you can "lease" the software as a subscription.  Subscriptions are advantageous as you do not pay the full price of the software and it provides your IT and Finance department a consistent way to account for IT costs (think operational expenses vs. capital expenses).</p><p>Finally it a misconception that VLs are only good for large customers.  VLs can be purchased for organizations with as little as 5 computers.</p><p>Comprehensive info on VL is here:<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/default.aspx#tab\_2" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/default.aspx#tab\_2</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>Here is a link to small business information:<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/buy/software/buy-software.aspx#waystobuy" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/buy/software/buy-software.aspx#waystobuy</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>Here is a link outlining Software Assurance Benefits (download the SA benefits chart PDF):<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/software-assurance/default.aspx#tab\_2" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/software-assurance/default.aspx#tab\_2</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>Here is a fine print detail for specific technology licensing.<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/volume-licensing-briefs.aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/volume-licensing-briefs.aspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>My suggestion is you consider Microsoft's Open agreements.</p><p>If you have any questions, email me via my blog:<br><a href="http://blogs.technet.com/tarpara" title="technet.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.technet.com/tarpara</a> [technet.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>actually this is a really poorly written article full of gross errors.Volume Licensing ( VL ) is not the same as Software Assurance ( SA ) .OEM licenses die with a machine .
VLs can be moved and reused as long as the new machine came with an OEM license .
Think of VLs as a way to upgrade a limited and discounted OEM license.VL customers can definitely use XP .
Most enterprises have VL agreements in place .
Those that do n't should probably sack their IT department or switch to Linux.Software Assurance which may or may not be included with a specific VL plan has numerous benefits including getting new versions of the software without paying anything extra i.e .
you buy Vista VLs now with SA ; when Win7 comes out , you get the upgrade to Win7 at no cost.VLs can be outright purchases paid in full or you can " lease " the software as a subscription .
Subscriptions are advantageous as you do not pay the full price of the software and it provides your IT and Finance department a consistent way to account for IT costs ( think operational expenses vs. capital expenses ) .Finally it a misconception that VLs are only good for large customers .
VLs can be purchased for organizations with as little as 5 computers.Comprehensive info on VL is here : http : //www.microsoft.com/licensing/default.aspx # tab \ _2 [ microsoft.com ] Here is a link to small business information : http : //www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/buy/software/buy-software.aspx # waystobuy [ microsoft.com ] Here is a link outlining Software Assurance Benefits ( download the SA benefits chart PDF ) : http : //www.microsoft.com/licensing/software-assurance/default.aspx # tab \ _2 [ microsoft.com ] Here is a fine print detail for specific technology licensing.http : //www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/volume-licensing-briefs.aspx [ microsoft.com ] My suggestion is you consider Microsoft 's Open agreements.If you have any questions , email me via my blog : http : //blogs.technet.com/tarpara [ technet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>actually this is a really poorly written article full of gross errors.Volume Licensing(VL) is not the same as  Software Assurance (SA).OEM licenses die with a machine.
VLs can be moved and reused as long as the new machine came with an OEM license.
Think of VLs as a way to upgrade a limited and discounted OEM license.VL customers can definitely use XP.
Most enterprises have VL agreements in place.
Those that don't should probably sack their IT department or switch to Linux.Software Assurance which may or may not be included with a specific VL plan has numerous benefits including getting new versions of the software without paying anything extra i.e.
you buy Vista VLs now with SA; when Win7 comes out, you get the upgrade to Win7 at no cost.VLs can be outright purchases paid in full or you can "lease" the software as a subscription.
Subscriptions are advantageous as you do not pay the full price of the software and it provides your IT and Finance department a consistent way to account for IT costs (think operational expenses vs. capital expenses).Finally it a misconception that VLs are only good for large customers.
VLs can be purchased for organizations with as little as 5 computers.Comprehensive info on VL is here:http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/default.aspx#tab\_2 [microsoft.com]Here is a link to small business information:http://www.microsoft.com/smallbusiness/buy/software/buy-software.aspx#waystobuy [microsoft.com]Here is a link outlining Software Assurance Benefits (download the SA benefits chart PDF):http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/software-assurance/default.aspx#tab\_2 [microsoft.com]Here is a fine print detail for specific technology licensing.http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/volume-licensing-briefs.aspx [microsoft.com]My suggestion is you consider Microsoft's Open agreements.If you have any questions, email me via my blog:http://blogs.technet.com/tarpara [technet.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353581</id>
	<title>Doomed to repeat, over and over....</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1245146520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did not learn their lesson with Vista, and now they continue onwards with the same silly stance on license activation for their products, as well as making things difficult to no end, for no good reason other then to frustrate the user from ever trying to go to xp.</p><p>The problem is they do not understand windows microsoft ended AT XP! No one wants to go further with the line then XP, they should just accept this, and make things easier for those with XP, and enforce XP, secure it further, as it seems no one wants to move, even if you pay them to, or offer a free version of Vista (which they arent even doing)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did not learn their lesson with Vista , and now they continue onwards with the same silly stance on license activation for their products , as well as making things difficult to no end , for no good reason other then to frustrate the user from ever trying to go to xp.The problem is they do not understand windows microsoft ended AT XP !
No one wants to go further with the line then XP , they should just accept this , and make things easier for those with XP , and enforce XP , secure it further , as it seems no one wants to move , even if you pay them to , or offer a free version of Vista ( which they arent even doing )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did not learn their lesson with Vista, and now they continue onwards with the same silly stance on license activation for their products, as well as making things difficult to no end, for no good reason other then to frustrate the user from ever trying to go to xp.The problem is they do not understand windows microsoft ended AT XP!
No one wants to go further with the line then XP, they should just accept this, and make things easier for those with XP, and enforce XP, secure it further, as it seems no one wants to move, even if you pay them to, or offer a free version of Vista (which they arent even doing)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356627</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245163800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The program in question is <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/software-assurance/default.aspx#tab\_1" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">software assurance</a> [microsoft.com], and the web page I just linked you to will indeed include details about where to go to get it.</p><p>Bear in mind there's some dumb rules about minimum seats and crap that might make it uneconomical for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The program in question is software assurance [ microsoft.com ] , and the web page I just linked you to will indeed include details about where to go to get it.Bear in mind there 's some dumb rules about minimum seats and crap that might make it uneconomical for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The program in question is software assurance [microsoft.com], and the web page I just linked you to will indeed include details about where to go to get it.Bear in mind there's some dumb rules about minimum seats and crap that might make it uneconomical for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352913</id>
	<title>Linux</title>
	<author>dontgetshocked</author>
	<datestamp>1245144060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Linux on the desktop will come soon I hope.All new versions of os's being out at aprox the same time should be a good thing.Freedom to choose - Linux - The peoples choice!
Thanks Microsoft for continuously making it easier and easier to choose Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux on the desktop will come soon I hope.All new versions of os 's being out at aprox the same time should be a good thing.Freedom to choose - Linux - The peoples choice !
Thanks Microsoft for continuously making it easier and easier to choose Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux on the desktop will come soon I hope.All new versions of os's being out at aprox the same time should be a good thing.Freedom to choose - Linux - The peoples choice!
Thanks Microsoft for continuously making it easier and easier to choose Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352453</id>
	<title>Re:Not a big deal?</title>
	<author>cdrudge</author>
	<datestamp>1245185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, I don't believe you are wrong.</p><p>If a company is an Enterprise customer, why would they not want to be covered under an enterprise or other volume licensing agreement with software assurance?  If they already decided to drink the Microsoft kool-aid, they are fricking idiots for not pouring a big old glass of it and getting the most out of it.  As long as you keep drinking, it's not that much more expensive and could actually be cheaper in the long run then paying "retail" during an OS version cycle.  Plus it can simplify licensing tracking across the enterprise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , I do n't believe you are wrong.If a company is an Enterprise customer , why would they not want to be covered under an enterprise or other volume licensing agreement with software assurance ?
If they already decided to drink the Microsoft kool-aid , they are fricking idiots for not pouring a big old glass of it and getting the most out of it .
As long as you keep drinking , it 's not that much more expensive and could actually be cheaper in the long run then paying " retail " during an OS version cycle .
Plus it can simplify licensing tracking across the enterprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, I don't believe you are wrong.If a company is an Enterprise customer, why would they not want to be covered under an enterprise or other volume licensing agreement with software assurance?
If they already decided to drink the Microsoft kool-aid, they are fricking idiots for not pouring a big old glass of it and getting the most out of it.
As long as you keep drinking, it's not that much more expensive and could actually be cheaper in the long run then paying "retail" during an OS version cycle.
Plus it can simplify licensing tracking across the enterprise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352663</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>ACMENEWSLLC</author>
	<datestamp>1245142980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you.   Now I don't feel so bad paying double for my MacBook Pro than what a better equipped Dell XPS costs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you .
Now I do n't feel so bad paying double for my MacBook Pro than what a better equipped Dell XPS costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you.
Now I don't feel so bad paying double for my MacBook Pro than what a better equipped Dell XPS costs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353203</id>
	<title>Does MS even know</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245145080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they ahve targets on there shoe?</p><p>Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they ahve targets on there shoe ? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they ahve targets on there shoe?Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361683</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>FreelanceWizard</author>
	<datestamp>1245254460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft licensing can be a bit tricky at the server level, what with CALs and server licenses that both have different rules depending on which server software you're talking about, but client licensing is pretty straightforward.</p><p>There's two components you need to worry about. The first one is the OS license; the other one is Software Assurance. If you buy a computer with an OS, it's already licensed, so you don't have to worry about buying a new one. If you buy the machine bare, you need to purchase an OS license for it. Now, in both cases, the license is only for that version of the operating system and its patches/service packs. That's where Software Assurance comes in. By paying a yearly fee, you get a variety of benefits (web-based training, phone support incidents, home use rights, etc.) as well as upgrade and downgrade rights. If you have SA for Windows Client, you can upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out, or downgrade to Windows 95 if you have to for some dumb legacy app. I can't tell you if $90/year/license is correct, because it depends on your volume license agreement.</p><p>As for VL itself, you can start with Open at 5 licenses. I'd highly recommend CDW as a license partner; they're easy to talk to and quite helpful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft licensing can be a bit tricky at the server level , what with CALs and server licenses that both have different rules depending on which server software you 're talking about , but client licensing is pretty straightforward.There 's two components you need to worry about .
The first one is the OS license ; the other one is Software Assurance .
If you buy a computer with an OS , it 's already licensed , so you do n't have to worry about buying a new one .
If you buy the machine bare , you need to purchase an OS license for it .
Now , in both cases , the license is only for that version of the operating system and its patches/service packs .
That 's where Software Assurance comes in .
By paying a yearly fee , you get a variety of benefits ( web-based training , phone support incidents , home use rights , etc .
) as well as upgrade and downgrade rights .
If you have SA for Windows Client , you can upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out , or downgrade to Windows 95 if you have to for some dumb legacy app .
I ca n't tell you if $ 90/year/license is correct , because it depends on your volume license agreement.As for VL itself , you can start with Open at 5 licenses .
I 'd highly recommend CDW as a license partner ; they 're easy to talk to and quite helpful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft licensing can be a bit tricky at the server level, what with CALs and server licenses that both have different rules depending on which server software you're talking about, but client licensing is pretty straightforward.There's two components you need to worry about.
The first one is the OS license; the other one is Software Assurance.
If you buy a computer with an OS, it's already licensed, so you don't have to worry about buying a new one.
If you buy the machine bare, you need to purchase an OS license for it.
Now, in both cases, the license is only for that version of the operating system and its patches/service packs.
That's where Software Assurance comes in.
By paying a yearly fee, you get a variety of benefits (web-based training, phone support incidents, home use rights, etc.
) as well as upgrade and downgrade rights.
If you have SA for Windows Client, you can upgrade to Windows 7 when it comes out, or downgrade to Windows 95 if you have to for some dumb legacy app.
I can't tell you if $90/year/license is correct, because it depends on your volume license agreement.As for VL itself, you can start with Open at 5 licenses.
I'd highly recommend CDW as a license partner; they're easy to talk to and quite helpful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352317</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, for $90/PC/year, <b>plus the cost of the open license of Windows</b>, you can run any Microsoft OS you want, technically all the way down to MS-DOS &amp; Windows 3.0.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , for $ 90/PC/year , plus the cost of the open license of Windows , you can run any Microsoft OS you want , technically all the way down to MS-DOS &amp; Windows 3.0 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, for $90/PC/year, plus the cost of the open license of Windows, you can run any Microsoft OS you want, technically all the way down to MS-DOS &amp; Windows 3.0.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>BlackSnake112</author>
	<datestamp>1245144600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are the penalty fees still the same? last I heard it was the cost of the license with no discounts + (3*the cost of the license with no discounts) per machine. Say the license was $100 (to make the math easy) it would be $400 per machine. That can add up fast if you are a medium or large shop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are the penalty fees still the same ?
last I heard it was the cost of the license with no discounts + ( 3 * the cost of the license with no discounts ) per machine .
Say the license was $ 100 ( to make the math easy ) it would be $ 400 per machine .
That can add up fast if you are a medium or large shop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are the penalty fees still the same?
last I heard it was the cost of the license with no discounts + (3*the cost of the license with no discounts) per machine.
Say the license was $100 (to make the math easy) it would be $400 per machine.
That can add up fast if you are a medium or large shop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353227</id>
	<title>Being in I.T. must suck</title>
	<author>AnAdventurer</author>
	<datestamp>1245145200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was IT manager for a small ($20 mil a year) company in 2001 and it was the worst year of my life. It seems like things are just getting harder and harder to deal with. Good luck guys!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was IT manager for a small ( $ 20 mil a year ) company in 2001 and it was the worst year of my life .
It seems like things are just getting harder and harder to deal with .
Good luck guys !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was IT manager for a small ($20 mil a year) company in 2001 and it was the worst year of my life.
It seems like things are just getting harder and harder to deal with.
Good luck guys!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357231</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1245168960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>all you need to do is buy a minimum of a thousand copies...</htmltext>
<tokenext>all you need to do is buy a minimum of a thousand copies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>all you need to do is buy a minimum of a thousand copies...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353035</id>
	<title>Bah! They're Just Testing the Water</title>
	<author>Greyfox</author>
	<datestamp>1245144420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're just testing how much more abuse they can heap on their customers before those customers start leaving in droves. It really is quite consistent with their business strategies. They'll keep pushing until a lot of customers start looking elsewhere then they'll backpedal to just before that point and dial it in there. They're experts of having things just good enough and just usable enough that people don't go looking elsewhere.
<p>
If you've been following their behavior for a while, it's pretty clear what they're up to. Watch for an increasingly bizarre set of announcements in the coming months, and at least one major backpedal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're just testing how much more abuse they can heap on their customers before those customers start leaving in droves .
It really is quite consistent with their business strategies .
They 'll keep pushing until a lot of customers start looking elsewhere then they 'll backpedal to just before that point and dial it in there .
They 're experts of having things just good enough and just usable enough that people do n't go looking elsewhere .
If you 've been following their behavior for a while , it 's pretty clear what they 're up to .
Watch for an increasingly bizarre set of announcements in the coming months , and at least one major backpedal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're just testing how much more abuse they can heap on their customers before those customers start leaving in droves.
It really is quite consistent with their business strategies.
They'll keep pushing until a lot of customers start looking elsewhere then they'll backpedal to just before that point and dial it in there.
They're experts of having things just good enough and just usable enough that people don't go looking elsewhere.
If you've been following their behavior for a while, it's pretty clear what they're up to.
Watch for an increasingly bizarre set of announcements in the coming months, and at least one major backpedal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301</id>
	<title>April plenty of time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The release candidate will have been available for 11 months come april of next year, which is plenty of time to test hardware.  Given that 7 is primarily an upgrade to Vista applications and drivers will not have issues, at least not unknown ones.</p><p>Vista can add security and stability to some environments when installed correctly.  The same will be true with Windows 7 at final release, and will do so without as many slowdowns that Vista brings.</p><p>Just like it's suboptimal to run very old hardware with new operating systems, it's also suboptimal to run new hardware with an old system.  Device vendors often fail to provide adequate drivers for outdated operating systems, and like it or not the base hardware in today's systems is completely different than it was back when XP was new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The release candidate will have been available for 11 months come april of next year , which is plenty of time to test hardware .
Given that 7 is primarily an upgrade to Vista applications and drivers will not have issues , at least not unknown ones.Vista can add security and stability to some environments when installed correctly .
The same will be true with Windows 7 at final release , and will do so without as many slowdowns that Vista brings.Just like it 's suboptimal to run very old hardware with new operating systems , it 's also suboptimal to run new hardware with an old system .
Device vendors often fail to provide adequate drivers for outdated operating systems , and like it or not the base hardware in today 's systems is completely different than it was back when XP was new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The release candidate will have been available for 11 months come april of next year, which is plenty of time to test hardware.
Given that 7 is primarily an upgrade to Vista applications and drivers will not have issues, at least not unknown ones.Vista can add security and stability to some environments when installed correctly.
The same will be true with Windows 7 at final release, and will do so without as many slowdowns that Vista brings.Just like it's suboptimal to run very old hardware with new operating systems, it's also suboptimal to run new hardware with an old system.
Device vendors often fail to provide adequate drivers for outdated operating systems, and like it or not the base hardware in today's systems is completely different than it was back when XP was new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353399</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft Will Cave</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1245145800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll bet 1000 points that your right- because actually windows xp will be available at exactly the same time windows 7 is released. You get a full license of XP and a virtual machine to run it in with windows 7. Look up XP mode. <br>
But if you just mean XP flat out retail- no. Ain't going to happen. Windows 7 will be the workhorse for atleast another 4 or 5 years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll bet 1000 points that your right- because actually windows xp will be available at exactly the same time windows 7 is released .
You get a full license of XP and a virtual machine to run it in with windows 7 .
Look up XP mode .
But if you just mean XP flat out retail- no .
Ai n't going to happen .
Windows 7 will be the workhorse for atleast another 4 or 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll bet 1000 points that your right- because actually windows xp will be available at exactly the same time windows 7 is released.
You get a full license of XP and a virtual machine to run it in with windows 7.
Look up XP mode.
But if you just mean XP flat out retail- no.
Ain't going to happen.
Windows 7 will be the workhorse for atleast another 4 or 5 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353567</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245146460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not really an option for small businesses, last time I spoke to a MS rep there was a minimum number of licenses that had to be purchased in order to qualify. Unless you are in the medium business range the numbers don't pan out. Of course the MS licensing has always been a moving target, hard to keep up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really an option for small businesses , last time I spoke to a MS rep there was a minimum number of licenses that had to be purchased in order to qualify .
Unless you are in the medium business range the numbers do n't pan out .
Of course the MS licensing has always been a moving target , hard to keep up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really an option for small businesses, last time I spoke to a MS rep there was a minimum number of licenses that had to be purchased in order to qualify.
Unless you are in the medium business range the numbers don't pan out.
Of course the MS licensing has always been a moving target, hard to keep up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352233</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Synchis</author>
	<datestamp>1245184500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your kidding right?</p><p>Please tell me your actually kidding, and your really a Linux shop making a really funny joke!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your kidding right ? Please tell me your actually kidding , and your really a Linux shop making a really funny joke !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your kidding right?Please tell me your actually kidding, and your really a Linux shop making a really funny joke!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355161</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you sure? I think its (2*the cost of the license with no discounts)+(2*the cost of the license with no discounts).</p><p>Or was it just 4*the cost of the license with no discounts? I can never remember.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you sure ?
I think its ( 2 * the cost of the license with no discounts ) + ( 2 * the cost of the license with no discounts ) .Or was it just 4 * the cost of the license with no discounts ?
I can never remember .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you sure?
I think its (2*the cost of the license with no discounts)+(2*the cost of the license with no discounts).Or was it just 4*the cost of the license with no discounts?
I can never remember.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352073</id>
	<title>Or you know...</title>
	<author>Darkinspiration</author>
	<datestamp>1245183900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most shop will just ignore this little twist and downgrade to xp anyway. No sane admin will run a mix of os on user workstations if he can prevent it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most shop will just ignore this little twist and downgrade to xp anyway .
No sane admin will run a mix of os on user workstations if he can prevent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most shop will just ignore this little twist and downgrade to xp anyway.
No sane admin will run a mix of os on user workstations if he can prevent it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354621</id>
	<title>Re:Bah! They're Just Testing the Water</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1245151560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you give an example of them doing this in the past? Nothing comes to mind for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you give an example of them doing this in the past ?
Nothing comes to mind for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you give an example of them doing this in the past?
Nothing comes to mind for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28359773</id>
	<title>Re:same old</title>
	<author>jrminter</author>
	<datestamp>1245242100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. My daughter in law's laptop was simply geriatric with Vista. Yes, we had tried reinstalling without all the crapware. Finally, we blew it away and installed XP SP3 and all the patches. It is positively zippy now.

I still maintain that most businesses could save a fortune by going to one of the major Linux distributions and OpenOffice for most users. Of course there will be some who need special software - and virtualization works... I think that is the long term solution for legacy Windows applications...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
My daughter in law 's laptop was simply geriatric with Vista .
Yes , we had tried reinstalling without all the crapware .
Finally , we blew it away and installed XP SP3 and all the patches .
It is positively zippy now .
I still maintain that most businesses could save a fortune by going to one of the major Linux distributions and OpenOffice for most users .
Of course there will be some who need special software - and virtualization works... I think that is the long term solution for legacy Windows applications.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
My daughter in law's laptop was simply geriatric with Vista.
Yes, we had tried reinstalling without all the crapware.
Finally, we blew it away and installed XP SP3 and all the patches.
It is positively zippy now.
I still maintain that most businesses could save a fortune by going to one of the major Linux distributions and OpenOffice for most users.
Of course there will be some who need special software - and virtualization works... I think that is the long term solution for legacy Windows applications...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28538661</id>
	<title>if any other OS vendor pulled this...</title>
	<author>brre</author>
	<datestamp>1246384140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...they'd be courting disaster. As in dead release, dead revenues for the next five years, or dead company.

The idea that this vendor is magically immune to customer satisfaction is a notion without a future. Great present, but lousy future.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...they 'd be courting disaster .
As in dead release , dead revenues for the next five years , or dead company .
The idea that this vendor is magically immune to customer satisfaction is a notion without a future .
Great present , but lousy future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...they'd be courting disaster.
As in dead release, dead revenues for the next five years, or dead company.
The idea that this vendor is magically immune to customer satisfaction is a notion without a future.
Great present, but lousy future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352243</id>
	<title>Microsoft finally following the path of Autodesk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where buying into their subscription service is actually cheaper than upgrading every few releases.  Also ending upgrade paths for older releases faster.</p><p>A subscription service, as much as I hate them, makes things much easier on both ends.  It makes it easier to budget for the company using the software and it makes for a steady revenue stream for the company selling the software.  You can end the subscription service any time and still continue using the same version of the software, but no more included upgraded.</p><p>If priced correctly every subscription service I've looked at is indeed less expensive than upgrading versions every couple of releases.  However, that was with companies who have a written in stone release and support schedule.  Autodesk for example, releases a new major version every 12 months and only supports the 3 most current versions.</p><p>If MS came out with a new version of Windows every 18-24 months and priced a "subscription" service such that it's 10\% cheaper to be on that than paying for upgrades, I'd jump on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where buying into their subscription service is actually cheaper than upgrading every few releases .
Also ending upgrade paths for older releases faster.A subscription service , as much as I hate them , makes things much easier on both ends .
It makes it easier to budget for the company using the software and it makes for a steady revenue stream for the company selling the software .
You can end the subscription service any time and still continue using the same version of the software , but no more included upgraded.If priced correctly every subscription service I 've looked at is indeed less expensive than upgrading versions every couple of releases .
However , that was with companies who have a written in stone release and support schedule .
Autodesk for example , releases a new major version every 12 months and only supports the 3 most current versions.If MS came out with a new version of Windows every 18-24 months and priced a " subscription " service such that it 's 10 \ % cheaper to be on that than paying for upgrades , I 'd jump on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where buying into their subscription service is actually cheaper than upgrading every few releases.
Also ending upgrade paths for older releases faster.A subscription service, as much as I hate them, makes things much easier on both ends.
It makes it easier to budget for the company using the software and it makes for a steady revenue stream for the company selling the software.
You can end the subscription service any time and still continue using the same version of the software, but no more included upgraded.If priced correctly every subscription service I've looked at is indeed less expensive than upgrading versions every couple of releases.
However, that was with companies who have a written in stone release and support schedule.
Autodesk for example, releases a new major version every 12 months and only supports the 3 most current versions.If MS came out with a new version of Windows every 18-24 months and priced a "subscription" service such that it's 10\% cheaper to be on that than paying for upgrades, I'd jump on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354907</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245153300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The software assurance only grants you, among other things, upgrade rights to the next release. I think you must be a volume license customer, too.</p><p>Personally, I don't feel the SA is worth it if you're only planning on taking advantage of the upgrade to next release rights.</p><p>Figure $90 X 5 (guessing OS releases are on 5 year average) = $450.  I don't think boxed versions of the OS cost that much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The software assurance only grants you , among other things , upgrade rights to the next release .
I think you must be a volume license customer , too.Personally , I do n't feel the SA is worth it if you 're only planning on taking advantage of the upgrade to next release rights.Figure $ 90 X 5 ( guessing OS releases are on 5 year average ) = $ 450 .
I do n't think boxed versions of the OS cost that much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The software assurance only grants you, among other things, upgrade rights to the next release.
I think you must be a volume license customer, too.Personally, I don't feel the SA is worth it if you're only planning on taking advantage of the upgrade to next release rights.Figure $90 X 5 (guessing OS releases are on 5 year average) = $450.
I don't think boxed versions of the OS cost that much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353919</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>T Murphy</author>
	<datestamp>1245148020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The people complaining about the ribbon without trying it are just looking for an excuse to hate M$. Have you tried to use the ribbon long enough to get used to it (not just long enough to decide you don't like it)? If you answered no, stop complaining. <br> <br>I installed an add-on that put in a tab containing all the usual menus, so it helped the transition, but I found myself using it less over time. Just about every intuitive GUI I've used focuses on buttons over menus.<br> <br>Did you use the buttons in pre-07 Office? All of those functions can be accesed through the menus, so if you used the buttons you musn't find the menus as useful as you claim. The ribbon just takes the menus and turns most of them into buttons. If you can click a button you can use the ribbon. Yes, you have to learn the new layout. No, it is not that hard. If you use Office enough that you think you can navigate the menus faster than someone can click a few buttons on the ribbon I think you can learn the new layout so fast next time you post a M$-bashing post you won't be able to legitimately mention the ribbon. If I'm wrong at least you have more material to work with.<br> <br>

Your post implies you readily dismiss responses like this, but I believe I am being reasonable in my argument. I admit I bash M$ for humor's sake, but bashing M$ for the sake of bashing M$ is an overdone meme here. You can make Microsoft look bad while being reasonable, it isn't that hard, so at least drop the trollish dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The people complaining about the ribbon without trying it are just looking for an excuse to hate M $ .
Have you tried to use the ribbon long enough to get used to it ( not just long enough to decide you do n't like it ) ?
If you answered no , stop complaining .
I installed an add-on that put in a tab containing all the usual menus , so it helped the transition , but I found myself using it less over time .
Just about every intuitive GUI I 've used focuses on buttons over menus .
Did you use the buttons in pre-07 Office ?
All of those functions can be accesed through the menus , so if you used the buttons you mus n't find the menus as useful as you claim .
The ribbon just takes the menus and turns most of them into buttons .
If you can click a button you can use the ribbon .
Yes , you have to learn the new layout .
No , it is not that hard .
If you use Office enough that you think you can navigate the menus faster than someone can click a few buttons on the ribbon I think you can learn the new layout so fast next time you post a M $ -bashing post you wo n't be able to legitimately mention the ribbon .
If I 'm wrong at least you have more material to work with .
Your post implies you readily dismiss responses like this , but I believe I am being reasonable in my argument .
I admit I bash M $ for humor 's sake , but bashing M $ for the sake of bashing M $ is an overdone meme here .
You can make Microsoft look bad while being reasonable , it is n't that hard , so at least drop the trollish dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The people complaining about the ribbon without trying it are just looking for an excuse to hate M$.
Have you tried to use the ribbon long enough to get used to it (not just long enough to decide you don't like it)?
If you answered no, stop complaining.
I installed an add-on that put in a tab containing all the usual menus, so it helped the transition, but I found myself using it less over time.
Just about every intuitive GUI I've used focuses on buttons over menus.
Did you use the buttons in pre-07 Office?
All of those functions can be accesed through the menus, so if you used the buttons you musn't find the menus as useful as you claim.
The ribbon just takes the menus and turns most of them into buttons.
If you can click a button you can use the ribbon.
Yes, you have to learn the new layout.
No, it is not that hard.
If you use Office enough that you think you can navigate the menus faster than someone can click a few buttons on the ribbon I think you can learn the new layout so fast next time you post a M$-bashing post you won't be able to legitimately mention the ribbon.
If I'm wrong at least you have more material to work with.
Your post implies you readily dismiss responses like this, but I believe I am being reasonable in my argument.
I admit I bash M$ for humor's sake, but bashing M$ for the sake of bashing M$ is an overdone meme here.
You can make Microsoft look bad while being reasonable, it isn't that hard, so at least drop the trollish dismissal of everyone who disagrees with you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355061</id>
	<title>The Year of Linux on the Desktop</title>
	<author>TheQuantumShift</author>
	<datestamp>1245154140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If someone threw billions of ad dollars at it and <b>sold</b> it as the "real OS for real people" or some such nonsense, it would be. Capitalism has beaten the "you get what you pay for" mantra into too many heads. Unfortunately it'll never turn into "you get what was advertised" and as along as MS projects the image of the "only choice for grown ups who want to collaborate and get stuff done" it'll dominate and companies will continue the same path on the upgrade treadmill. Of course they'll have to lay off 20\% of their IT staff to raise the cash for the next upgrade; but hey, thats why outsourcing and offshoring were invented, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If someone threw billions of ad dollars at it and sold it as the " real OS for real people " or some such nonsense , it would be .
Capitalism has beaten the " you get what you pay for " mantra into too many heads .
Unfortunately it 'll never turn into " you get what was advertised " and as along as MS projects the image of the " only choice for grown ups who want to collaborate and get stuff done " it 'll dominate and companies will continue the same path on the upgrade treadmill .
Of course they 'll have to lay off 20 \ % of their IT staff to raise the cash for the next upgrade ; but hey , thats why outsourcing and offshoring were invented , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If someone threw billions of ad dollars at it and sold it as the "real OS for real people" or some such nonsense, it would be.
Capitalism has beaten the "you get what you pay for" mantra into too many heads.
Unfortunately it'll never turn into "you get what was advertised" and as along as MS projects the image of the "only choice for grown ups who want to collaborate and get stuff done" it'll dominate and companies will continue the same path on the upgrade treadmill.
Of course they'll have to lay off 20\% of their IT staff to raise the cash for the next upgrade; but hey, thats why outsourcing and offshoring were invented, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358959</id>
	<title>They DID cave. XP downgrade windows now 18 months.</title>
	<author>MojoStan</author>
	<datestamp>1245231780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm impressed, bro. From <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860\_3-10265750-56.html?tag=mncol;title" title="cnet.com">CNET's <i>Beyond Binary</i> blog about the same story</a> [cnet.com]:
<ul>
<li> <b>Update, 5:00 p.m.:</b> A Microsoft representative said late Tuesday that the company has decided to extend the period for which Windows 7 machines will be eligible to downgrade to XP. Rather than a six-month window, as originally planned, the window will extend to either 18 months from the Windows 7 launch or until the release of the first service pack of Windows 7, whichever comes first.</li>
</ul><p>
Even if SP1 comes first, that will be at least a year after Windows 7 is released (as you predicted). Of course, if enough big customers complain when the deadline is looming, they'll probably extend it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm impressed , bro .
From CNET 's Beyond Binary blog about the same story [ cnet.com ] : Update , 5 : 00 p.m. : A Microsoft representative said late Tuesday that the company has decided to extend the period for which Windows 7 machines will be eligible to downgrade to XP .
Rather than a six-month window , as originally planned , the window will extend to either 18 months from the Windows 7 launch or until the release of the first service pack of Windows 7 , whichever comes first .
Even if SP1 comes first , that will be at least a year after Windows 7 is released ( as you predicted ) .
Of course , if enough big customers complain when the deadline is looming , they 'll probably extend it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm impressed, bro.
From CNET's Beyond Binary blog about the same story [cnet.com]:

 Update, 5:00 p.m.: A Microsoft representative said late Tuesday that the company has decided to extend the period for which Windows 7 machines will be eligible to downgrade to XP.
Rather than a six-month window, as originally planned, the window will extend to either 18 months from the Windows 7 launch or until the release of the first service pack of Windows 7, whichever comes first.
Even if SP1 comes first, that will be at least a year after Windows 7 is released (as you predicted).
Of course, if enough big customers complain when the deadline is looming, they'll probably extend it again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352635</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352623</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245142800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ubuntu worked right out of the box, decent default viddy drivers, network card detected. Sound isn't working but I hadn't expected any of it to work since this is a newish motherboard with everything integrated so that's much better than I expected. XP had a worse default viddy driver and no networking. Of course, I managed to kill Ubuntu trying to get the full ATI drivers working but that's probably just a silly mistake made overlooking something.</p></div><p>Yes, the mistake is that the drivers aren't "done". There are a lot of known issues with several ATI cards. I would recommend leaving them off until Karmic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ubuntu worked right out of the box , decent default viddy drivers , network card detected .
Sound is n't working but I had n't expected any of it to work since this is a newish motherboard with everything integrated so that 's much better than I expected .
XP had a worse default viddy driver and no networking .
Of course , I managed to kill Ubuntu trying to get the full ATI drivers working but that 's probably just a silly mistake made overlooking something.Yes , the mistake is that the drivers are n't " done " .
There are a lot of known issues with several ATI cards .
I would recommend leaving them off until Karmic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ubuntu worked right out of the box, decent default viddy drivers, network card detected.
Sound isn't working but I hadn't expected any of it to work since this is a newish motherboard with everything integrated so that's much better than I expected.
XP had a worse default viddy driver and no networking.
Of course, I managed to kill Ubuntu trying to get the full ATI drivers working but that's probably just a silly mistake made overlooking something.Yes, the mistake is that the drivers aren't "done".
There are a lot of known issues with several ATI cards.
I would recommend leaving them off until Karmic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352989</id>
	<title>YOU ARE A GIGANTIC GREAT FAGGOT</title>
	<author>AliasTheRoot</author>
	<datestamp>1245144300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you are a gigantic great faggot<br>you're the man now dog!<br>netcraft confirms it, you are a faggot<br>in Soviet Russia faggots are you<br>I for one do not welcome you as our gigantic faggot overlords!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you are a gigantic great faggotyou 're the man now dog ! netcraft confirms it , you are a faggotin Soviet Russia faggots are youI for one do not welcome you as our gigantic faggot overlords !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are a gigantic great faggotyou're the man now dog!netcraft confirms it, you are a faggotin Soviet Russia faggots are youI for one do not welcome you as our gigantic faggot overlords!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28360849</id>
	<title>Not surprised</title>
	<author>EvilIntelligence</author>
	<datestamp>1245250080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As usual, Microsoft finds a way to rip of its customers, again and again and again....

The amazing thing is, people still keep falling for it!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As usual , Microsoft finds a way to rip of its customers , again and again and again... . The amazing thing is , people still keep falling for it !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As usual, Microsoft finds a way to rip of its customers, again and again and again....

The amazing thing is, people still keep falling for it!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356555</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1245163380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On the other hand, look at Apple. Snow Leopard is only a $29 upgrade for a single license and a $59 upgrade for a family license. There is only 1 Leopard version not the myriad of versions like Windoze, and Leopard kicks Windoze butt any given day.</p></div> </blockquote><p>But then the hardware is more expensive. I spent &pound;400 on my widescreen laptop that comes with everything from bluetooth, firewire, sdcard readers etc. (and even a copy of Windows) that is superior to a Mac Mini (hardware wise) which costs &pound;499, that is &pound;99 more... For what?</p><p>But then I need to buy a Windows license to use my Windows only software and run Windows - <b>like most users do</b>. So why would I want that?</p><p>The worst is, majority of stuff I use (<a href="http://steamcommunity.com/id/Ash-Fox/games" title="steamcommunity.com">mostly games</a> [steamcommunity.com]) works absolutely fine in Wine in practically every platform... But on OS X's wine ports (including crossover), it doesn't seem to work for the majority of it (Jeremy White mentioned something about OS X having broken opengl and buggy drivers, requiring each application to have specific hacks).</p><p>OS X, in my opinion is cheap - but I'm not referencing cost in that statement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , look at Apple .
Snow Leopard is only a $ 29 upgrade for a single license and a $ 59 upgrade for a family license .
There is only 1 Leopard version not the myriad of versions like Windoze , and Leopard kicks Windoze butt any given day .
But then the hardware is more expensive .
I spent   400 on my widescreen laptop that comes with everything from bluetooth , firewire , sdcard readers etc .
( and even a copy of Windows ) that is superior to a Mac Mini ( hardware wise ) which costs   499 , that is   99 more... For what ? But then I need to buy a Windows license to use my Windows only software and run Windows - like most users do .
So why would I want that ? The worst is , majority of stuff I use ( mostly games [ steamcommunity.com ] ) works absolutely fine in Wine in practically every platform... But on OS X 's wine ports ( including crossover ) , it does n't seem to work for the majority of it ( Jeremy White mentioned something about OS X having broken opengl and buggy drivers , requiring each application to have specific hacks ) .OS X , in my opinion is cheap - but I 'm not referencing cost in that statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, look at Apple.
Snow Leopard is only a $29 upgrade for a single license and a $59 upgrade for a family license.
There is only 1 Leopard version not the myriad of versions like Windoze, and Leopard kicks Windoze butt any given day.
But then the hardware is more expensive.
I spent £400 on my widescreen laptop that comes with everything from bluetooth, firewire, sdcard readers etc.
(and even a copy of Windows) that is superior to a Mac Mini (hardware wise) which costs £499, that is £99 more... For what?But then I need to buy a Windows license to use my Windows only software and run Windows - like most users do.
So why would I want that?The worst is, majority of stuff I use (mostly games [steamcommunity.com]) works absolutely fine in Wine in practically every platform... But on OS X's wine ports (including crossover), it doesn't seem to work for the majority of it (Jeremy White mentioned something about OS X having broken opengl and buggy drivers, requiring each application to have specific hacks).OS X, in my opinion is cheap - but I'm not referencing cost in that statement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353767</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>moniker127</author>
	<datestamp>1245147300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didnt bother reading ALL of the comments in regard to this- so i'm sure someone mentioned these points- but here goes.

-You're comparing Windows xp ( Released August 24, 2001 ) to Ubuntu 9.04 ( Released April 23, 2009 ). <br> <br>
Thats a difference of 7 years and 8 months. Ubuntu did not even exist for a whole 3 years after XP was around. The first version of ubuntu was released on October 20, 2004, so its not possible to do a side by side comparison with ubuntu-<br> <br>
but install mandrake 8.0 (released 2001) and compare it to windows 7. See how well it works, because thats EXACTLY what your doing in terms of time scale, but the other way around. <br> <br>
As far as initial configuration of the OS upon install- I think that if you ask ANYONE who has tried it- they will tell you windows 7's install was easier and more complete than any operating system they've tried to date.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I didnt bother reading ALL of the comments in regard to this- so i 'm sure someone mentioned these points- but here goes .
-You 're comparing Windows xp ( Released August 24 , 2001 ) to Ubuntu 9.04 ( Released April 23 , 2009 ) .
Thats a difference of 7 years and 8 months .
Ubuntu did not even exist for a whole 3 years after XP was around .
The first version of ubuntu was released on October 20 , 2004 , so its not possible to do a side by side comparison with ubuntu- but install mandrake 8.0 ( released 2001 ) and compare it to windows 7 .
See how well it works , because thats EXACTLY what your doing in terms of time scale , but the other way around .
As far as initial configuration of the OS upon install- I think that if you ask ANYONE who has tried it- they will tell you windows 7 's install was easier and more complete than any operating system they 've tried to date .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didnt bother reading ALL of the comments in regard to this- so i'm sure someone mentioned these points- but here goes.
-You're comparing Windows xp ( Released August 24, 2001 ) to Ubuntu 9.04 ( Released April 23, 2009 ).
Thats a difference of 7 years and 8 months.
Ubuntu did not even exist for a whole 3 years after XP was around.
The first version of ubuntu was released on October 20, 2004, so its not possible to do a side by side comparison with ubuntu- 
but install mandrake 8.0 (released 2001) and compare it to windows 7.
See how well it works, because thats EXACTLY what your doing in terms of time scale, but the other way around.
As far as initial configuration of the OS upon install- I think that if you ask ANYONE who has tried it- they will tell you windows 7's install was easier and more complete than any operating system they've tried to date.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356061</id>
	<title>Oh Michael</title>
	<author>Player Parker</author>
	<datestamp>1245159960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're only hurting yourself!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're only hurting yourself !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're only hurting yourself!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352195</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The software assurance is $90, you still have to purchase whatever license you are installing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The software assurance is $ 90 , you still have to purchase whatever license you are installing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The software assurance is $90, you still have to purchase whatever license you are installing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358761</id>
	<title>Not a bad idea</title>
	<author>Almahtar</author>
	<datestamp>1245272280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wouldn't be surprised if (at least in significant part) this is to push early sales of Windows 7 licenses.  Kind of funny - leverage the reluctance to leave the old(est) OS for fear of ending up with the old(er) OS to make sales of your new OS go up.<br> <br>

I can see why an XP shop would go ahead and get Windows 7 licenses for new machines ASAP so they could downgrade them to XP rather than being stuck with a heterogeneous (XP and Vista) configuration and having to support two OSes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprised if ( at least in significant part ) this is to push early sales of Windows 7 licenses .
Kind of funny - leverage the reluctance to leave the old ( est ) OS for fear of ending up with the old ( er ) OS to make sales of your new OS go up .
I can see why an XP shop would go ahead and get Windows 7 licenses for new machines ASAP so they could downgrade them to XP rather than being stuck with a heterogeneous ( XP and Vista ) configuration and having to support two OSes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprised if (at least in significant part) this is to push early sales of Windows 7 licenses.
Kind of funny - leverage the reluctance to leave the old(est) OS for fear of ending up with the old(er) OS to make sales of your new OS go up.
I can see why an XP shop would go ahead and get Windows 7 licenses for new machines ASAP so they could downgrade them to XP rather than being stuck with a heterogeneous (XP and Vista) configuration and having to support two OSes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352667</id>
	<title>Re:April plenty of time</title>
	<author>xednieht</author>
	<datestamp>1245142980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya just in time for April FOOLS day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya just in time for April FOOLS day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya just in time for April FOOLS day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355899</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1245158880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The more I ahve thought about, the more I thing the current liscensing scheme is NOT by design.<br>Well an accountants design, but not by abny sane software or business design.</p><p>How much is spent supporting, marketing, boxing, and advertising multiple version of the same product?<br>Charge 100 bucks, one version save your self the support and maintenance nightmare, and spin it as a way your thinking about the customers.<br>If they want to sell office again, then need to get every up to Win 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The more I ahve thought about , the more I thing the current liscensing scheme is NOT by design.Well an accountants design , but not by abny sane software or business design.How much is spent supporting , marketing , boxing , and advertising multiple version of the same product ? Charge 100 bucks , one version save your self the support and maintenance nightmare , and spin it as a way your thinking about the customers.If they want to sell office again , then need to get every up to Win 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The more I ahve thought about, the more I thing the current liscensing scheme is NOT by design.Well an accountants design, but not by abny sane software or business design.How much is spent supporting, marketing, boxing, and advertising multiple version of the same product?Charge 100 bucks, one version save your self the support and maintenance nightmare, and spin it as a way your thinking about the customers.If they want to sell office again, then need to get every up to Win 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353073</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>sgage</author>
	<datestamp>1245144540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What else do you expect from a corporation that considers its customers "the enemy"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What else do you expect from a corporation that considers its customers " the enemy " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else do you expect from a corporation that considers its customers "the enemy"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355567</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1245156960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can"
<p>I can see defending the ribbon as a much easier to use GUI.  However the productivity will not be realized except for new users and once those still using menus (OO.o) wind up running out of room.  For business with a bunch of "click here to do this" Office 2003 staff,  the Ribbon is a nightmare.  Seriously how difficult is it to put in an option to replace the ribbon with the menus? <a href="http://toolbartoggle.com/" title="toolbartoggle.com" rel="nofollow">Like this</a> [toolbartoggle.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity , and now they 're incorporating it into every damn program they can " I can see defending the ribbon as a much easier to use GUI .
However the productivity will not be realized except for new users and once those still using menus ( OO.o ) wind up running out of room .
For business with a bunch of " click here to do this " Office 2003 staff , the Ribbon is a nightmare .
Seriously how difficult is it to put in an option to replace the ribbon with the menus ?
Like this [ toolbartoggle.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Replaced their Office interface with that goddawful ever changing ribbon which certain geeks continue to defend despite it completely ruining productivity, and now they're incorporating it into every damn program they can"
I can see defending the ribbon as a much easier to use GUI.
However the productivity will not be realized except for new users and once those still using menus (OO.o) wind up running out of room.
For business with a bunch of "click here to do this" Office 2003 staff,  the Ribbon is a nightmare.
Seriously how difficult is it to put in an option to replace the ribbon with the menus?
Like this [toolbartoggle.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354017</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>mlts</author>
	<datestamp>1245148440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would add that these Windows licenses are development or testing machines, and not production boxes.  Machines for use for general work don't fit under this category, similar with production Web servers that the business runs on for day to day.  Similar with the machine licenses granted under a Technet subscription.  They are for evaluation and testing use, not full production.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would add that these Windows licenses are development or testing machines , and not production boxes .
Machines for use for general work do n't fit under this category , similar with production Web servers that the business runs on for day to day .
Similar with the machine licenses granted under a Technet subscription .
They are for evaluation and testing use , not full production .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would add that these Windows licenses are development or testing machines, and not production boxes.
Machines for use for general work don't fit under this category, similar with production Web servers that the business runs on for day to day.
Similar with the machine licenses granted under a Technet subscription.
They are for evaluation and testing use, not full production.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356625</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft seeking a patent...</title>
	<author>Ash-Fox</author>
	<datestamp>1245163800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since you don't refer to the reason, I'll just assume you're mad about the "<i>Fired their Aces game development team ending a long running franchise in flight simulation</i>" point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since you do n't refer to the reason , I 'll just assume you 're mad about the " Fired their Aces game development team ending a long running franchise in flight simulation " point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since you don't refer to the reason, I'll just assume you're mad about the "Fired their Aces game development team ending a long running franchise in flight simulation" point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352201</id>
	<title>So Many Rules!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I feel like I'm at a strip club.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel like I 'm at a strip club .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel like I'm at a strip club.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352823</id>
	<title>Headline is too long</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1245143700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 Licensing a Disaster

</p><p>That's all it would take. How many versions?  Six?  It was a disaster before XP was figured in.  Only Microsoft would think that was a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 Licensing a Disaster That 's all it would take .
How many versions ?
Six ? It was a disaster before XP was figured in .
Only Microsoft would think that was a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 Licensing a Disaster

That's all it would take.
How many versions?
Six?  It was a disaster before XP was figured in.
Only Microsoft would think that was a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217</id>
	<title>HOLY FUCK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245145140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean if i'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading to the latest and greatest If i feel like formatting several times and have no idea what XP mode is?<br> <br>
Seriously- the amount of backwards compatibility microsoft gives is ridiculous. Microsoft bends over backwards to provide backwards compatibility- including installing a full copy of an older operating system in their new one. If you cant find some solution that works for you- are aren't actually looking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean if i 'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading to the latest and greatest If i feel like formatting several times and have no idea what XP mode is ?
Seriously- the amount of backwards compatibility microsoft gives is ridiculous .
Microsoft bends over backwards to provide backwards compatibility- including installing a full copy of an older operating system in their new one .
If you cant find some solution that works for you- are are n't actually looking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean if i'm using an 8 year old operating system and a 7 year old browser I may have some issues upgrading to the latest and greatest If i feel like formatting several times and have no idea what XP mode is?
Seriously- the amount of backwards compatibility microsoft gives is ridiculous.
Microsoft bends over backwards to provide backwards compatibility- including installing a full copy of an older operating system in their new one.
If you cant find some solution that works for you- are aren't actually looking.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357903</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why the fuck would you pay for the same OS $90 per year? Are you a moron?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why the fuck would you pay for the same OS $ 90 per year ?
Are you a moron ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why the fuck would you pay for the same OS $90 per year?
Are you a moron?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355323</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>aztracker1</author>
	<datestamp>1245155520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't even cheat with Windows and borrow someone's more recent CD because your legally-purchased key won't likely be compatible.</p></div><p>Umn, any vista key works in any vista dvd...  Same for Win7.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't even cheat with Windows and borrow someone 's more recent CD because your legally-purchased key wo n't likely be compatible.Umn , any vista key works in any vista dvd... Same for Win7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't even cheat with Windows and borrow someone's more recent CD because your legally-purchased key won't likely be compatible.Umn, any vista key works in any vista dvd...  Same for Win7.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357491</id>
	<title>What's new?</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1245171360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> It's just retarded marketing people being retarded. <br>
It's just annoying marketing people being annoying. <br>
It's just marketing people destroying the market. <br>
Through vendor lock-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just retarded marketing people being retarded .
It 's just annoying marketing people being annoying .
It 's just marketing people destroying the market .
Through vendor lock-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> It's just retarded marketing people being retarded.
It's just annoying marketing people being annoying.
It's just marketing people destroying the market.
Through vendor lock-in.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361621</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245254220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it is true. &#194;&pound;40 in the UK. Talk to a Microsoft reseller. You still need to buy a PC with the windows tax, and you have to do every PC in the company. I find it cheaper just to get windows with the PC. They will also do the same for office, which casts about the same per year, rather than a one of OEM cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is true .
    40 in the UK .
Talk to a Microsoft reseller .
You still need to buy a PC with the windows tax , and you have to do every PC in the company .
I find it cheaper just to get windows with the PC .
They will also do the same for office , which casts about the same per year , rather than a one of OEM cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is true.
Â£40 in the UK.
Talk to a Microsoft reseller.
You still need to buy a PC with the windows tax, and you have to do every PC in the company.
I find it cheaper just to get windows with the PC.
They will also do the same for office, which casts about the same per year, rather than a one of OEM cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683</id>
	<title>Software vs. Hardware support - A Realistic View.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1245143040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"...which allows them to install any OS version..."</p></div><p>This "Assurance" is bullshit.  XP WILL die eventually, and it will be due to the hardware vendors not writing drivers anymore, not because Microsoft has "assured" you by taking your money.  It's already getting difficult to find XP driver support for new hardware out there TODAY, much less 12 - 24 months from now when businesses will still be looking to run XP.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...which allows them to install any OS version... " This " Assurance " is bullshit .
XP WILL die eventually , and it will be due to the hardware vendors not writing drivers anymore , not because Microsoft has " assured " you by taking your money .
It 's already getting difficult to find XP driver support for new hardware out there TODAY , much less 12 - 24 months from now when businesses will still be looking to run XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...which allows them to install any OS version..."This "Assurance" is bullshit.
XP WILL die eventually, and it will be due to the hardware vendors not writing drivers anymore, not because Microsoft has "assured" you by taking your money.
It's already getting difficult to find XP driver support for new hardware out there TODAY, much less 12 - 24 months from now when businesses will still be looking to run XP.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353715</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245147000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You skipped the part where he had to spend tons of time creating a homebrew up-to-date Windows install disc, whereas he just had to download the latest Ubuntu CD and without tweaking it mostly worked.<br> <br>

That was his point: that to be "legit" with Windows you have to do so much work, by using a really old install disc and then installing tons of updates. Whereas with OSS licensing, you always have the option of directly installing the most up-to-date software.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You skipped the part where he had to spend tons of time creating a homebrew up-to-date Windows install disc , whereas he just had to download the latest Ubuntu CD and without tweaking it mostly worked .
That was his point : that to be " legit " with Windows you have to do so much work , by using a really old install disc and then installing tons of updates .
Whereas with OSS licensing , you always have the option of directly installing the most up-to-date software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You skipped the part where he had to spend tons of time creating a homebrew up-to-date Windows install disc, whereas he just had to download the latest Ubuntu CD and without tweaking it mostly worked.
That was his point: that to be "legit" with Windows you have to do so much work, by using a really old install disc and then installing tons of updates.
Whereas with OSS licensing, you always have the option of directly installing the most up-to-date software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352697</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352291</id>
	<title>So...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You buy a PC before April 23, 2010, you can get XP on it. Buy it after that date and you can't get XP on it. IT wants XP because it doesn't know whether Windows 7 will support everything it needs and doesn't want to use Vista because it sucks. <br> <br>

This sounds like a job for Linux, man!</htmltext>
<tokenext>You buy a PC before April 23 , 2010 , you can get XP on it .
Buy it after that date and you ca n't get XP on it .
IT wants XP because it does n't know whether Windows 7 will support everything it needs and does n't want to use Vista because it sucks .
This sounds like a job for Linux , man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You buy a PC before April 23, 2010, you can get XP on it.
Buy it after that date and you can't get XP on it.
IT wants XP because it doesn't know whether Windows 7 will support everything it needs and doesn't want to use Vista because it sucks.
This sounds like a job for Linux, man!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107</id>
	<title>The power of lock-in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245184020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And yet, somehow I fear that even <i>this</i> will not usher in The Year of Linux on the Desktop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet , somehow I fear that even this will not usher in The Year of Linux on the Desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet, somehow I fear that even this will not usher in The Year of Linux on the Desktop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352429</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245185160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In related news, dial-up isn't as great as broadband.</p><p>Are we done comparing the latest-and-greatest version of an operating system to a 7-year-old model?</p><p>'For my next trick, I'll compare the state of Ubuntu circa 2002 to Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In related news , dial-up is n't as great as broadband.Are we done comparing the latest-and-greatest version of an operating system to a 7-year-old model ?
'For my next trick , I 'll compare the state of Ubuntu circa 2002 to Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In related news, dial-up isn't as great as broadband.Are we done comparing the latest-and-greatest version of an operating system to a 7-year-old model?
'For my next trick, I'll compare the state of Ubuntu circa 2002 to Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354559</id>
	<title>Re:April plenty of time</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1245151200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, good luck with that.</p><p>I recently tried out W7 RC for the first time, and put fallout 3 on there while I was at it. It's known as a glitchy game, but it ran OK.</p><p>Then, after about a day of play, the system ran the automatic update while I was playing. No problem. The following day when I tried to play, the game would randomly freeze every 5-10 minutes of play. I rolled the system back, systematically (damn nice, and absolutely necessary, feature, what with the likelihood that updates =will= break things) until I found the fault.</p><p>The fault was an update which was unremovable from within Windows itself and could only be removed through such a rollback. It was the first update performed, and the subsequent updates depended on it (apparently). Supposedly the update was to test whether W7 would update properly, and that alone - ie, supposedly no functional changes. Right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , good luck with that.I recently tried out W7 RC for the first time , and put fallout 3 on there while I was at it .
It 's known as a glitchy game , but it ran OK.Then , after about a day of play , the system ran the automatic update while I was playing .
No problem .
The following day when I tried to play , the game would randomly freeze every 5-10 minutes of play .
I rolled the system back , systematically ( damn nice , and absolutely necessary , feature , what with the likelihood that updates = will = break things ) until I found the fault.The fault was an update which was unremovable from within Windows itself and could only be removed through such a rollback .
It was the first update performed , and the subsequent updates depended on it ( apparently ) .
Supposedly the update was to test whether W7 would update properly , and that alone - ie , supposedly no functional changes .
Right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, good luck with that.I recently tried out W7 RC for the first time, and put fallout 3 on there while I was at it.
It's known as a glitchy game, but it ran OK.Then, after about a day of play, the system ran the automatic update while I was playing.
No problem.
The following day when I tried to play, the game would randomly freeze every 5-10 minutes of play.
I rolled the system back, systematically (damn nice, and absolutely necessary, feature, what with the likelihood that updates =will= break things) until I found the fault.The fault was an update which was unremovable from within Windows itself and could only be removed through such a rollback.
It was the first update performed, and the subsequent updates depended on it (apparently).
Supposedly the update was to test whether W7 would update properly, and that alone - ie, supposedly no functional changes.
Right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356297</id>
	<title>OEM vs Volume</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245161700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is complete BS.</p><p>Look at the slide (in TFA!) - its for OEM licenses - not a Volume Business licenses (with Software Assurance).  If you have a proper volume license (like most mid-sized and larger businesses do) you can use any 32bit OS.</p><p>If you're a *HOME* user, or a business using very small number of PCs (and hence volume licensing is inappropriate), this may affect you.</p><p>Either the poster (like the article author) doesn't have a clue, or is trolling for the 90\% of posters who haven't used Windows since '95 but don't pause to complain about how much their 2009 Linux is so much better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is complete BS.Look at the slide ( in TFA !
) - its for OEM licenses - not a Volume Business licenses ( with Software Assurance ) .
If you have a proper volume license ( like most mid-sized and larger businesses do ) you can use any 32bit OS.If you 're a * HOME * user , or a business using very small number of PCs ( and hence volume licensing is inappropriate ) , this may affect you.Either the poster ( like the article author ) does n't have a clue , or is trolling for the 90 \ % of posters who have n't used Windows since '95 but do n't pause to complain about how much their 2009 Linux is so much better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is complete BS.Look at the slide (in TFA!
) - its for OEM licenses - not a Volume Business licenses (with Software Assurance).
If you have a proper volume license (like most mid-sized and larger businesses do) you can use any 32bit OS.If you're a *HOME* user, or a business using very small number of PCs (and hence volume licensing is inappropriate), this may affect you.Either the poster (like the article author) doesn't have a clue, or is trolling for the 90\% of posters who haven't used Windows since '95 but don't pause to complain about how much their 2009 Linux is so much better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355129</id>
	<title>Re:HOLY FUCK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245154500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, this is softare we're talking about here. Not vintage cars for which you can't buy spare parts.</p><p>The Win XP source code hasn't vanished, or suddenly become impossible to compile.</p><p>The only thing stopping Microsoft from continuing to sell the product most customers atually want in (Windows XP), rather than trying to ram a giant steaming turd down their throats, is their own greed. Just rebrand it Windows Classic and let the New Coke die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , this is softare we 're talking about here .
Not vintage cars for which you ca n't buy spare parts.The Win XP source code has n't vanished , or suddenly become impossible to compile.The only thing stopping Microsoft from continuing to sell the product most customers atually want in ( Windows XP ) , rather than trying to ram a giant steaming turd down their throats , is their own greed .
Just rebrand it Windows Classic and let the New Coke die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, this is softare we're talking about here.
Not vintage cars for which you can't buy spare parts.The Win XP source code hasn't vanished, or suddenly become impossible to compile.The only thing stopping Microsoft from continuing to sell the product most customers atually want in (Windows XP), rather than trying to ram a giant steaming turd down their throats, is their own greed.
Just rebrand it Windows Classic and let the New Coke die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352691</id>
	<title>No Sound......It didn't work out of the box</title>
	<author>Carbaholic</author>
	<datestamp>1245143100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I downloaded windows 7 x64 ultimate RC0 and it worked right out of the box, even the sound, and it automatically installed my NVidia drivers for me.</p><p>and it automatically installed my bluetooth drivers, and my webcam drivers, and my xbox controller drivers etc.</p><p>Windows 7 is ridiculously easy to set up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I downloaded windows 7 x64 ultimate RC0 and it worked right out of the box , even the sound , and it automatically installed my NVidia drivers for me.and it automatically installed my bluetooth drivers , and my webcam drivers , and my xbox controller drivers etc.Windows 7 is ridiculously easy to set up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I downloaded windows 7 x64 ultimate RC0 and it worked right out of the box, even the sound, and it automatically installed my NVidia drivers for me.and it automatically installed my bluetooth drivers, and my webcam drivers, and my xbox controller drivers etc.Windows 7 is ridiculously easy to set up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352345</id>
	<title>Re:My entire shop is SuSE Linux</title>
	<author>blueturffan</author>
	<datestamp>1245184860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Cause we can't afford to waste the money when we're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Ironically, I wasted several mental cycles trying to parse that sentence.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cause we ca n't afford to waste the money when we 're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work .
Ironically , I wasted several mental cycles trying to parse that sentence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cause we can't afford to waste the money when we're crunching statistical genetics regressions on graphics cycles that have nothing to do with work.
Ironically, I wasted several mental cycles trying to parse that sentence.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352331</id>
	<title>Re:Downgrade then Upgrade... sigh...</title>
	<author>abshack</author>
	<datestamp>1245184800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's no money to be made being simple (or so Microsoft probably believes).</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's no money to be made being simple ( or so Microsoft probably believes ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's no money to be made being simple (or so Microsoft probably believes).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357407</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245170460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the cost of the license with no discounts + (3*the cost of the license with no discounts)</p></div><p>Pardon me, but isn't that just 4x?</p><p>heh, captcha is travesty<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the cost of the license with no discounts + ( 3 * the cost of the license with no discounts ) Pardon me , but is n't that just 4x ? heh , captcha is travesty ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the cost of the license with no discounts + (3*the cost of the license with no discounts)Pardon me, but isn't that just 4x?heh, captcha is travesty ;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352523</id>
	<title>Re:My entire shop is SuSE Linux</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1245185640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wait, what?
<p>
Also, using boxen in a sentence is cause for automatic suspension of your nerd license.  On the other hand, it also qualifies you to receive a script kiddie license at no charge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , what ?
Also , using boxen in a sentence is cause for automatic suspension of your nerd license .
On the other hand , it also qualifies you to receive a script kiddie license at no charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, what?
Also, using boxen in a sentence is cause for automatic suspension of your nerd license.
On the other hand, it also qualifies you to receive a script kiddie license at no charge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352191</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>gubers33</author>
	<datestamp>1245184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it is a large company $90/yr/pc is an outrageous price. You would be spending more for the operating system than the PC, considering most companies get a fairly good discount when buying large quantities of PCs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is a large company $ 90/yr/pc is an outrageous price .
You would be spending more for the operating system than the PC , considering most companies get a fairly good discount when buying large quantities of PCs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is a large company $90/yr/pc is an outrageous price.
You would be spending more for the operating system than the PC, considering most companies get a fairly good discount when buying large quantities of PCs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352319</id>
	<title>ANY operating system?</title>
	<author>LSDelirious</author>
	<datestamp>1245184740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to sign up, then flood their call centers with complaints that Win 3.11 won't run on my New i7 build = D</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to sign up , then flood their call centers with complaints that Win 3.11 wo n't run on my New i7 build = D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to sign up, then flood their call centers with complaints that Win 3.11 won't run on my New i7 build = D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</id>
	<title>Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>jollyreaper</author>
	<datestamp>1245184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anecdotal observation time. I just built a new desktop and am planning on using it as a testbed. I have a homebrew distro of XP called XP 64-bit Ultimate which is intended to be a current, patched, up-to-date version of XP so you're not stuck downloading several hundred megs of patches and cruft when you do a new install. I also have Ubuntu 9.04 and the beta for Windows 7.</p><p>Ubuntu worked right out of the box, decent default viddy drivers, network card detected. Sound isn't working but I hadn't expected any of it to work since this is a newish motherboard with everything integrated so that's much better than I expected. XP had a worse default viddy driver and no networking. Of course, I managed to kill Ubuntu trying to get the full ATI drivers working but that's probably just a silly mistake made overlooking something.</p><p>Now I know that people will say "n00b, you can slipstream stuff into your custom build of xp your such a linux fanboy" etc etc but what's nice about Ubuntu is you don't have to dick with any of that stuff. Distros release very frequently and you can burn a new CD whenever you want. You can't even cheat with Windows and borrow someone's more recent CD because your legally-purchased key won't likely be compatible.</p><p>This is a roundabout way of saying that for all the unfamiliar quirks and different ways of doing things, open source is so much nicer to work with simply due to the lack of the licensing model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anecdotal observation time .
I just built a new desktop and am planning on using it as a testbed .
I have a homebrew distro of XP called XP 64-bit Ultimate which is intended to be a current , patched , up-to-date version of XP so you 're not stuck downloading several hundred megs of patches and cruft when you do a new install .
I also have Ubuntu 9.04 and the beta for Windows 7.Ubuntu worked right out of the box , decent default viddy drivers , network card detected .
Sound is n't working but I had n't expected any of it to work since this is a newish motherboard with everything integrated so that 's much better than I expected .
XP had a worse default viddy driver and no networking .
Of course , I managed to kill Ubuntu trying to get the full ATI drivers working but that 's probably just a silly mistake made overlooking something.Now I know that people will say " n00b , you can slipstream stuff into your custom build of xp your such a linux fanboy " etc etc but what 's nice about Ubuntu is you do n't have to dick with any of that stuff .
Distros release very frequently and you can burn a new CD whenever you want .
You ca n't even cheat with Windows and borrow someone 's more recent CD because your legally-purchased key wo n't likely be compatible.This is a roundabout way of saying that for all the unfamiliar quirks and different ways of doing things , open source is so much nicer to work with simply due to the lack of the licensing model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anecdotal observation time.
I just built a new desktop and am planning on using it as a testbed.
I have a homebrew distro of XP called XP 64-bit Ultimate which is intended to be a current, patched, up-to-date version of XP so you're not stuck downloading several hundred megs of patches and cruft when you do a new install.
I also have Ubuntu 9.04 and the beta for Windows 7.Ubuntu worked right out of the box, decent default viddy drivers, network card detected.
Sound isn't working but I hadn't expected any of it to work since this is a newish motherboard with everything integrated so that's much better than I expected.
XP had a worse default viddy driver and no networking.
Of course, I managed to kill Ubuntu trying to get the full ATI drivers working but that's probably just a silly mistake made overlooking something.Now I know that people will say "n00b, you can slipstream stuff into your custom build of xp your such a linux fanboy" etc etc but what's nice about Ubuntu is you don't have to dick with any of that stuff.
Distros release very frequently and you can burn a new CD whenever you want.
You can't even cheat with Windows and borrow someone's more recent CD because your legally-purchased key won't likely be compatible.This is a roundabout way of saying that for all the unfamiliar quirks and different ways of doing things, open source is so much nicer to work with simply due to the lack of the licensing model.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352767</id>
	<title>Re:April plenty of time</title>
	<author>babblefrog</author>
	<datestamp>1245143460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems like we regularly read articles about the number of corporate environments that can't upgrade from IE6 because of applications that won't work with IE7 or IE8. I can't imagine that they are going to be in any hurry to start upgrading to Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like we regularly read articles about the number of corporate environments that ca n't upgrade from IE6 because of applications that wo n't work with IE7 or IE8 .
I ca n't imagine that they are going to be in any hurry to start upgrading to Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like we regularly read articles about the number of corporate environments that can't upgrade from IE6 because of applications that won't work with IE7 or IE8.
I can't imagine that they are going to be in any hurry to start upgrading to Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28360949</id>
	<title>Re:$90 per year per pc? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Much Less!</p><p>Go to auctions and buy an entire computer, complete with XP license sticker on a big brand, say Dell for under 30 bucks. Recovery disks are obtainable.</p><p>Else buy your licences off Ebay in Germany. Doctrine of First sale applies there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Much Less ! Go to auctions and buy an entire computer , complete with XP license sticker on a big brand , say Dell for under 30 bucks .
Recovery disks are obtainable.Else buy your licences off Ebay in Germany .
Doctrine of First sale applies there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Much Less!Go to auctions and buy an entire computer, complete with XP license sticker on a big brand, say Dell for under 30 bucks.
Recovery disks are obtainable.Else buy your licences off Ebay in Germany.
Doctrine of First sale applies there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28359205</id>
	<title>Re:Unless you are a school district...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245234720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The versions of volume licensed XP that our non profit use that come with SA, all say that the XP version is an UPGRADE version, and that the computers have to have a windows OS on them preinstalled. Your school might want to double check its license before it gets audited.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The versions of volume licensed XP that our non profit use that come with SA , all say that the XP version is an UPGRADE version , and that the computers have to have a windows OS on them preinstalled .
Your school might want to double check its license before it gets audited .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The versions of volume licensed XP that our non profit use that come with SA, all say that the XP version is an UPGRADE version, and that the computers have to have a windows OS on them preinstalled.
Your school might want to double check its license before it gets audited.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354771</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354253</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1245149640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not really.  Try to install Ubuntu then run apt-get update/upgrade.  You're waiting for tons of downloads after the installation is completed, depending on what you installed.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not really .
Try to install Ubuntu then run apt-get update/upgrade .
You 're waiting for tons of downloads after the installation is completed , depending on what you installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not really.
Try to install Ubuntu then run apt-get update/upgrade.
You're waiting for tons of downloads after the installation is completed, depending on what you installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352697</id>
	<title>Re:Put on the fire-retardant suit, it's flame-time</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1245143160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay, so to get this straight:
<br>linux installed fine, but without working sound.  You killed your linux installation through attempting to update video drivers.
<br>windows installed fine, but without working LAN drivers. I am assuming you corrected this and installed proper ATI drivers without crashing your system.
<p>
Objectively, how is your Linux experience any better than Windows? It sounds like overall, it was worse  (assuming you had a need to upgrade to ATI drivers. ).   I'm not saying that linux can't be easily installed and working, obviously that is not true.  However, your anecdotal experience -- if anything --- seems to say you should stay with Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so to get this straight : linux installed fine , but without working sound .
You killed your linux installation through attempting to update video drivers .
windows installed fine , but without working LAN drivers .
I am assuming you corrected this and installed proper ATI drivers without crashing your system .
Objectively , how is your Linux experience any better than Windows ?
It sounds like overall , it was worse ( assuming you had a need to upgrade to ATI drivers .
) . I 'm not saying that linux ca n't be easily installed and working , obviously that is not true .
However , your anecdotal experience -- if anything --- seems to say you should stay with Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so to get this straight:
linux installed fine, but without working sound.
You killed your linux installation through attempting to update video drivers.
windows installed fine, but without working LAN drivers.
I am assuming you corrected this and installed proper ATI drivers without crashing your system.
Objectively, how is your Linux experience any better than Windows?
It sounds like overall, it was worse  (assuming you had a need to upgrade to ATI drivers.
).   I'm not saying that linux can't be easily installed and working, obviously that is not true.
However, your anecdotal experience -- if anything --- seems to say you should stay with Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354771
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28359205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28359773
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354017
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28538925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352807
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356165
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352697
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354559
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28360949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352429
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355061
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28360233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353953
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355911
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_16_1756229_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28359773
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353767
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352429
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352861
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352623
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353715
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354253
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354771
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28359205
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352987
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352807
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356555
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353581
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28360233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352189
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352197
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352439
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352345
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355863
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28358959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355061
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352767
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352913
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28360949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361683
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28361621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352375
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355045
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353093
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355161
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357407
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356165
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354017
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28356175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352815
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28538925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28355899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28357231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28354907
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28353227
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_16_1756229.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_16_1756229.28352503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
