<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_30_224233</id>
	<title>One Year Later, "Dead" XP Still Going Strong</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246361520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"Microsoft pulled the plug on Windows XP a year ago today, no longer selling new copies in most venues. Yet according to a report from InfoWorld, various <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/windows/year-after-windows-xps-death-users-keep-it-alive-and-kicking-247">downgrade paths to XP are keeping the operating system very much alive</a>, particularly among businesses. In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by <a href="http://www.xpnet.com/">community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs</a>. Microsoft recently planned to <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1756229/Windows-7-Licensing-a-Disaster-For-XP-Shops?art\_pos=1">further limit the ability to downgrade to XP</a> now that Windows 7 is in the pipeline, but backlash against the licensing scheme prompted the company to change course, <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9134528">extending downgrade rights on new PCs from April 2010 to April 2011</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " Microsoft pulled the plug on Windows XP a year ago today , no longer selling new copies in most venues .
Yet according to a report from InfoWorld , various downgrade paths to XP are keeping the operating system very much alive , particularly among businesses .
In fact , despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold , more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP , according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs .
Microsoft recently planned to further limit the ability to downgrade to XP now that Windows 7 is in the pipeline , but backlash against the licensing scheme prompted the company to change course , extending downgrade rights on new PCs from April 2010 to April 2011 .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "Microsoft pulled the plug on Windows XP a year ago today, no longer selling new copies in most venues.
Yet according to a report from InfoWorld, various downgrade paths to XP are keeping the operating system very much alive, particularly among businesses.
In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs.
Microsoft recently planned to further limit the ability to downgrade to XP now that Windows 7 is in the pipeline, but backlash against the licensing scheme prompted the company to change course, extending downgrade rights on new PCs from April 2010 to April 2011.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999</id>
	<title>This is another reason to switch to Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246368720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With Linux, I know I can still go download updates for some ridiculously old distribution like Fedora Core 3 and that it will still work. It will never be sunset and I'll always be able to download it. Killing off an operating system when it's no longer profitable to keep it alive, despite the concerns of customers, is a reason why community-developed open source software is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With Linux , I know I can still go download updates for some ridiculously old distribution like Fedora Core 3 and that it will still work .
It will never be sunset and I 'll always be able to download it .
Killing off an operating system when it 's no longer profitable to keep it alive , despite the concerns of customers , is a reason why community-developed open source software is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With Linux, I know I can still go download updates for some ridiculously old distribution like Fedora Core 3 and that it will still work.
It will never be sunset and I'll always be able to download it.
Killing off an operating system when it's no longer profitable to keep it alive, despite the concerns of customers, is a reason why community-developed open source software is better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537629</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1246373700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what? For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do. You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it.</p></div><p>Maybe I didn't complain because the alternative was Windows 3.11, which was incompatible with a lot of new (95+ only) programs. Windows NT4 was incompatible with a lot of DOS programs, so a lot of people used 95.</p><p>Now I have XP, which is a good OS, way more stable than 95 was and is compatible with a lot of different programs, devices (driver from NT4 can work on XP, driver from 2000 has a high chance of working on XP). Microsoft wants me to install a new version of Windows, be it Vista or 7. For that to happen, the new OS has to be significantly better than my current one. But it isn't -<br>1)more DRM,<br>2)uses more resources,<br>3)incompatible with old programs,<br>4)incompatible with old drivers/devices.</p><p>And what does the new OS offer?</p><p>1)DirectX 10/11.<br>2)UAC<br>3)New UI</p><p>So:<br>1)I game very little currently, the games I play support DX9, therefore for some time I won't need to "upgrade". I may even not play newer (DX10+ only) games because my PC will be too slow and I may lose interest in gaming.<br>2)UAC, at least in Vista, is an annoyance - I saw my friends use their new laptops. They were very happy when I googled info on how to disable the UAC.<br>3) I don't care for the new UI, I would probably use a classic setting on Vista/7 (if there is one).</p><p>The result: There is no need for me to reinstall Windows, not to mention Install a different version of Windows.</p><p>Yes, maybe when I build a new PC I will use Win7 or 8 or whatever version will be then. But for now, my PC is enough, I don't need and do not plan to buy a newer/faster one.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what ?
For whatever reason , they did n't complain nearly as much as you people do .
You have a piece of shit software firewall that is n't playing nice with your Vista and * BAM * that 's it.Maybe I did n't complain because the alternative was Windows 3.11 , which was incompatible with a lot of new ( 95 + only ) programs .
Windows NT4 was incompatible with a lot of DOS programs , so a lot of people used 95.Now I have XP , which is a good OS , way more stable than 95 was and is compatible with a lot of different programs , devices ( driver from NT4 can work on XP , driver from 2000 has a high chance of working on XP ) .
Microsoft wants me to install a new version of Windows , be it Vista or 7 .
For that to happen , the new OS has to be significantly better than my current one .
But it is n't -1 ) more DRM,2 ) uses more resources,3 ) incompatible with old programs,4 ) incompatible with old drivers/devices.And what does the new OS offer ? 1 ) DirectX 10/11.2 ) UAC3 ) New UISo : 1 ) I game very little currently , the games I play support DX9 , therefore for some time I wo n't need to " upgrade " .
I may even not play newer ( DX10 + only ) games because my PC will be too slow and I may lose interest in gaming.2 ) UAC , at least in Vista , is an annoyance - I saw my friends use their new laptops .
They were very happy when I googled info on how to disable the UAC.3 ) I do n't care for the new UI , I would probably use a classic setting on Vista/7 ( if there is one ) .The result : There is no need for me to reinstall Windows , not to mention Install a different version of Windows.Yes , maybe when I build a new PC I will use Win7 or 8 or whatever version will be then .
But for now , my PC is enough , I do n't need and do not plan to buy a newer/faster one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what?
For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do.
You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it.Maybe I didn't complain because the alternative was Windows 3.11, which was incompatible with a lot of new (95+ only) programs.
Windows NT4 was incompatible with a lot of DOS programs, so a lot of people used 95.Now I have XP, which is a good OS, way more stable than 95 was and is compatible with a lot of different programs, devices (driver from NT4 can work on XP, driver from 2000 has a high chance of working on XP).
Microsoft wants me to install a new version of Windows, be it Vista or 7.
For that to happen, the new OS has to be significantly better than my current one.
But it isn't -1)more DRM,2)uses more resources,3)incompatible with old programs,4)incompatible with old drivers/devices.And what does the new OS offer?1)DirectX 10/11.2)UAC3)New UISo:1)I game very little currently, the games I play support DX9, therefore for some time I won't need to "upgrade".
I may even not play newer (DX10+ only) games because my PC will be too slow and I may lose interest in gaming.2)UAC, at least in Vista, is an annoyance - I saw my friends use their new laptops.
They were very happy when I googled info on how to disable the UAC.3) I don't care for the new UI, I would probably use a classic setting on Vista/7 (if there is one).The result: There is no need for me to reinstall Windows, not to mention Install a different version of Windows.Yes, maybe when I build a new PC I will use Win7 or 8 or whatever version will be then.
But for now, my PC is enough, I don't need and do not plan to buy a newer/faster one.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246367220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until you create a new directory while logged in with admin rights and then try to transfer something from an XP box over the network to your vista box only to get an odd error message indicating you don't have permission to put the file in the directory you just created.</p><p>Bastards.</p><p>Vista has some issues. Overall I like the interface. Files moving is still slow,and weird rights issues keep popping up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until you create a new directory while logged in with admin rights and then try to transfer something from an XP box over the network to your vista box only to get an odd error message indicating you do n't have permission to put the file in the directory you just created.Bastards.Vista has some issues .
Overall I like the interface .
Files moving is still slow,and weird rights issues keep popping up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until you create a new directory while logged in with admin rights and then try to transfer something from an XP box over the network to your vista box only to get an odd error message indicating you don't have permission to put the file in the directory you just created.Bastards.Vista has some issues.
Overall I like the interface.
Files moving is still slow,and weird rights issues keep popping up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539769</id>
	<title>Re: what made Vista suck?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246441260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Marketing, and intentionally so. "Oh look, we have Windows 7 now, and while it's essentially XP with pretty colors, it Sucks Less Than Vista"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Marketing , and intentionally so .
" Oh look , we have Windows 7 now , and while it 's essentially XP with pretty colors , it Sucks Less Than Vista "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marketing, and intentionally so.
"Oh look, we have Windows 7 now, and while it's essentially XP with pretty colors, it Sucks Less Than Vista"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536975</id>
	<title>Linux still fails.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246368480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A discontinued Microsoft Operating System from 2001 is <b>still more popular than all Linux distros combined</b>.  All of the blame for this lies with ignorant users, evil MS business practices, solar flares, global warming, ponzi schemes, and expired milk.  Everything and everyone else is to blame.  Anyone who disagrees is a paid M$ astroturfing troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A discontinued Microsoft Operating System from 2001 is still more popular than all Linux distros combined .
All of the blame for this lies with ignorant users , evil MS business practices , solar flares , global warming , ponzi schemes , and expired milk .
Everything and everyone else is to blame .
Anyone who disagrees is a paid M $ astroturfing troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A discontinued Microsoft Operating System from 2001 is still more popular than all Linux distros combined.
All of the blame for this lies with ignorant users, evil MS business practices, solar flares, global warming, ponzi schemes, and expired milk.
Everything and everyone else is to blame.
Anyone who disagrees is a paid M$ astroturfing troll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537673</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246374060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can I have a whole grown virgin? Also please no Galactic, Airlines, Music, or anything like that with it. Just plain, with some clothes to take off.</p><p>Thanks.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I have a whole grown virgin ?
Also please no Galactic , Airlines , Music , or anything like that with it .
Just plain , with some clothes to take off.Thanks .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I have a whole grown virgin?
Also please no Galactic, Airlines, Music, or anything like that with it.
Just plain, with some clothes to take off.Thanks.
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542975</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>YouWantFriesWithThat</author>
	<datestamp>1246465860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i agree with TropicalCoder about using an outbound firewall.  something infected me a while ago and nothing would catch it while the drive was running the OS.  the only reason i noticed was that randomname.exe was dialing out.  mounted the drive on another PC and successfully identified the source files and cleaned it.
<br> <br>
but that's not why i responded.  i have to tell you that comodo is one of the worst pieces of...software...that i have ever had the misfortune of trying to use.  it comes up here frequently as a great firewall/AV, so i gave it a shot.  i uninstalled all previous security software and installed set it up.  i set it up to block all outbound and notify, so i could whitelist one by one.  it allowed firefox to see the net once.  and never again, even when i manually whitelisted the program.  even after i disabled the firewall and rebooted a dozen times.  when i checked the forums were filled with similar tales of silent failure and ignoring manual whitelists and other settings.  from what i could tell the new version (3 something? this was a few months ago) was buggy as hell.  comparing my results with the experiences of others i think that it might have been silently blocking DHCP.  in the end it was two days wasted, still no net, and i gave up because the fix looked more involved than i wanted to get.
<br> <br>
as always, your mileage might vary.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree with TropicalCoder about using an outbound firewall .
something infected me a while ago and nothing would catch it while the drive was running the OS .
the only reason i noticed was that randomname.exe was dialing out .
mounted the drive on another PC and successfully identified the source files and cleaned it .
but that 's not why i responded .
i have to tell you that comodo is one of the worst pieces of...software...that i have ever had the misfortune of trying to use .
it comes up here frequently as a great firewall/AV , so i gave it a shot .
i uninstalled all previous security software and installed set it up .
i set it up to block all outbound and notify , so i could whitelist one by one .
it allowed firefox to see the net once .
and never again , even when i manually whitelisted the program .
even after i disabled the firewall and rebooted a dozen times .
when i checked the forums were filled with similar tales of silent failure and ignoring manual whitelists and other settings .
from what i could tell the new version ( 3 something ?
this was a few months ago ) was buggy as hell .
comparing my results with the experiences of others i think that it might have been silently blocking DHCP .
in the end it was two days wasted , still no net , and i gave up because the fix looked more involved than i wanted to get .
as always , your mileage might vary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree with TropicalCoder about using an outbound firewall.
something infected me a while ago and nothing would catch it while the drive was running the OS.
the only reason i noticed was that randomname.exe was dialing out.
mounted the drive on another PC and successfully identified the source files and cleaned it.
but that's not why i responded.
i have to tell you that comodo is one of the worst pieces of...software...that i have ever had the misfortune of trying to use.
it comes up here frequently as a great firewall/AV, so i gave it a shot.
i uninstalled all previous security software and installed set it up.
i set it up to block all outbound and notify, so i could whitelist one by one.
it allowed firefox to see the net once.
and never again, even when i manually whitelisted the program.
even after i disabled the firewall and rebooted a dozen times.
when i checked the forums were filled with similar tales of silent failure and ignoring manual whitelists and other settings.
from what i could tell the new version (3 something?
this was a few months ago) was buggy as hell.
comparing my results with the experiences of others i think that it might have been silently blocking DHCP.
in the end it was two days wasted, still no net, and i gave up because the fix looked more involved than i wanted to get.
as always, your mileage might vary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538071</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540149</id>
	<title>I just suggested a Windows 7 tester install XP</title>
	<author>Ilgaz</author>
	<datestamp>1246446420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As Symbian UIQ died going chapter 11, Sony Ericsson mysteriously stopped offering application and firmware updates for UIQ handsets like P1i.</p><p>So while browsing Windows 7 MS forums, I found a desperate owner of P1i like me looking for a way to sync/backup his phone under Windows 7. I simply suggested getting ''XP mode'' from MS as the application and drivers he tries to run will not just work, they will also effect stability of OS.</p><p>What I mean is, XP will stay there almost forever because of reasons like these. Oh BTW, a MS engineer marked his own answer which is basically as template making no sense (contact vendor for update) as ''answer'' to the issue. They get bonus from these? Ballmer should check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As Symbian UIQ died going chapter 11 , Sony Ericsson mysteriously stopped offering application and firmware updates for UIQ handsets like P1i.So while browsing Windows 7 MS forums , I found a desperate owner of P1i like me looking for a way to sync/backup his phone under Windows 7 .
I simply suggested getting ''XP mode' ' from MS as the application and drivers he tries to run will not just work , they will also effect stability of OS.What I mean is , XP will stay there almost forever because of reasons like these .
Oh BTW , a MS engineer marked his own answer which is basically as template making no sense ( contact vendor for update ) as ''answer' ' to the issue .
They get bonus from these ?
Ballmer should check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As Symbian UIQ died going chapter 11, Sony Ericsson mysteriously stopped offering application and firmware updates for UIQ handsets like P1i.So while browsing Windows 7 MS forums, I found a desperate owner of P1i like me looking for a way to sync/backup his phone under Windows 7.
I simply suggested getting ''XP mode'' from MS as the application and drivers he tries to run will not just work, they will also effect stability of OS.What I mean is, XP will stay there almost forever because of reasons like these.
Oh BTW, a MS engineer marked his own answer which is basically as template making no sense (contact vendor for update) as ''answer'' to the issue.
They get bonus from these?
Ballmer should check.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538213</id>
	<title>Re:Vista just not worth the cash</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1246378920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>OSX is $129 when Vista is $300+ thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.</i> </p><p>The geek <b>always</b> quotes retail list for the most expensive boxed version he can find.</p><p>The reality is the OEM Windows system bundle.</p><p>Users upgrade hardware and software when they feel that the time and the price is right. The Windows OS is usually a one-time purchase for the life of the system.</p><p>Some will always  be looking - as I am looking - for a deal on a close-out or refurbished special that is a plausible candidate for the Win 7 upgrade at $50-$100.</p><p>If you are running XP on the Mac it is because your core apps haven't been ported to the Mac.</p><p>But most users spend their time engaged with applications - not with the OS.</p><p>They will never warm to the idea of trying to maintain two or three operating systems, software libraries and skill sets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX is $ 129 when Vista is $ 300 + thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better .
The geek always quotes retail list for the most expensive boxed version he can find.The reality is the OEM Windows system bundle.Users upgrade hardware and software when they feel that the time and the price is right .
The Windows OS is usually a one-time purchase for the life of the system.Some will always be looking - as I am looking - for a deal on a close-out or refurbished special that is a plausible candidate for the Win 7 upgrade at $ 50- $ 100.If you are running XP on the Mac it is because your core apps have n't been ported to the Mac.But most users spend their time engaged with applications - not with the OS.They will never warm to the idea of trying to maintain two or three operating systems , software libraries and skill sets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX is $129 when Vista is $300+ thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.
The geek always quotes retail list for the most expensive boxed version he can find.The reality is the OEM Windows system bundle.Users upgrade hardware and software when they feel that the time and the price is right.
The Windows OS is usually a one-time purchase for the life of the system.Some will always  be looking - as I am looking - for a deal on a close-out or refurbished special that is a plausible candidate for the Win 7 upgrade at $50-$100.If you are running XP on the Mac it is because your core apps haven't been ported to the Mac.But most users spend their time engaged with applications - not with the OS.They will never warm to the idea of trying to maintain two or three operating systems, software libraries and skill sets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</id>
	<title>Count me in</title>
	<author>SlashGordon</author>
	<datestamp>1246365480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop.  Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser.  It's not happening on my XP systems.  And suddenly, within the past couple of weeks, even IE is freezing.  So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with XP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop .
Now , however some sort of incompatibility between Vista , Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser .
It 's not happening on my XP systems .
And suddenly , within the past couple of weeks , even IE is freezing .
So I 'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I 'm going with XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop.
Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser.
It's not happening on my XP systems.
And suddenly, within the past couple of weeks, even IE is freezing.
So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539131</id>
	<title>Re:Does 5.1 Sound work in games?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246389540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Vista, Direct 3D 5.1 Sound doesn't work anymore because they removed it to make their DRM stuff work (maybe you could rip 5.1 if it was still available?). After playing computer games with a 5.1 system for some time, I don't really want to go back to 2.1, but older (+1 year, I don't have anything newer) games very rarely support OpenAL. Are newer games (i.e. not HL2, not Portal, not TF2...) generally better at supporting OpenAL, or do you only play in stereo?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Vista , Direct 3D 5.1 Sound does n't work anymore because they removed it to make their DRM stuff work ( maybe you could rip 5.1 if it was still available ? ) .
After playing computer games with a 5.1 system for some time , I do n't really want to go back to 2.1 , but older ( + 1 year , I do n't have anything newer ) games very rarely support OpenAL .
Are newer games ( i.e .
not HL2 , not Portal , not TF2... ) generally better at supporting OpenAL , or do you only play in stereo ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Vista, Direct 3D 5.1 Sound doesn't work anymore because they removed it to make their DRM stuff work (maybe you could rip 5.1 if it was still available?).
After playing computer games with a 5.1 system for some time, I don't really want to go back to 2.1, but older (+1 year, I don't have anything newer) games very rarely support OpenAL.
Are newer games (i.e.
not HL2, not Portal, not TF2...) generally better at supporting OpenAL, or do you only play in stereo?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540749</id>
	<title>Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?</title>
	<author>MtViewGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1246454220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, Windows XP has one <b>REALLY</b> bad problem: its very ungraceful recovery from anytime you have an EXPLORER.EXE crash. If it weren't for that Windows XP would still be a lot more popular. The best thing about Windows <i>Vista</i> is that whenever you have a program crash the recovery is far more graceful and doesn't bring the entire system down.</p><p>Thanks to much-improved code optimization, Windows 7 will run actually fairly well on older machines, and as such could become a hugely popular upgrade option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , Windows XP has one REALLY bad problem : its very ungraceful recovery from anytime you have an EXPLORER.EXE crash .
If it were n't for that Windows XP would still be a lot more popular .
The best thing about Windows Vista is that whenever you have a program crash the recovery is far more graceful and does n't bring the entire system down.Thanks to much-improved code optimization , Windows 7 will run actually fairly well on older machines , and as such could become a hugely popular upgrade option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, Windows XP has one REALLY bad problem: its very ungraceful recovery from anytime you have an EXPLORER.EXE crash.
If it weren't for that Windows XP would still be a lot more popular.
The best thing about Windows Vista is that whenever you have a program crash the recovery is far more graceful and doesn't bring the entire system down.Thanks to much-improved code optimization, Windows 7 will run actually fairly well on older machines, and as such could become a hugely popular upgrade option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536563</id>
	<title>The reason is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why XP is still strong, honestly, is because people are morons and they are cheap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why XP is still strong , honestly , is because people are morons and they are cheap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why XP is still strong, honestly, is because people are morons and they are cheap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28552975</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>shiftless</author>
	<datestamp>1246460220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know you're joking, but things were different back then. Sure Win95 was buggy, but it was a leap forward in OS design over DOS or Windows 3.1. (Of course OS/2 was better, but I never knew anyone who used it.) People used to have to reboot their computers with DOS too when a program crashed so it wasn't such a new thing. Nowadays it's different. If I have a fully patched copy of XP, or better yet Linux that "Just Works", you're damn right I'm going to bitch when a supposedly modern, advanced OS is a resource hogging, crashing, buggy POS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're joking , but things were different back then .
Sure Win95 was buggy , but it was a leap forward in OS design over DOS or Windows 3.1 .
( Of course OS/2 was better , but I never knew anyone who used it .
) People used to have to reboot their computers with DOS too when a program crashed so it was n't such a new thing .
Nowadays it 's different .
If I have a fully patched copy of XP , or better yet Linux that " Just Works " , you 're damn right I 'm going to bitch when a supposedly modern , advanced OS is a resource hogging , crashing , buggy POS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're joking, but things were different back then.
Sure Win95 was buggy, but it was a leap forward in OS design over DOS or Windows 3.1.
(Of course OS/2 was better, but I never knew anyone who used it.
) People used to have to reboot their computers with DOS too when a program crashed so it wasn't such a new thing.
Nowadays it's different.
If I have a fully patched copy of XP, or better yet Linux that "Just Works", you're damn right I'm going to bitch when a supposedly modern, advanced OS is a resource hogging, crashing, buggy POS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</id>
	<title>Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1246369800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A couple of months ago, my brother has his XP installation is such a bad shape that I had to come over to fix it. While we were walking on the street we started discussing about XP vs. Vista and how much Vista sucks.</p><p>After a few minutes a random stranger on the street barges in on the discussion how much Vista really sucked. Yes people, a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on Vista. It simply sucks that much.</p><p>Windows 7 will probably be a lot better since it is pretty much impossible to do worse. Vista simply feels like a big step back. It's hard to really describe the flaws of Vista but using it simply feels so annoying.</p><p>Personally, I am wondering. What the hell is wrong with Vista? I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe. What made Vista suck?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A couple of months ago , my brother has his XP installation is such a bad shape that I had to come over to fix it .
While we were walking on the street we started discussing about XP vs. Vista and how much Vista sucks.After a few minutes a random stranger on the street barges in on the discussion how much Vista really sucked .
Yes people , a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on Vista .
It simply sucks that much.Windows 7 will probably be a lot better since it is pretty much impossible to do worse .
Vista simply feels like a big step back .
It 's hard to really describe the flaws of Vista but using it simply feels so annoying.Personally , I am wondering .
What the hell is wrong with Vista ?
I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe .
What made Vista suck ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A couple of months ago, my brother has his XP installation is such a bad shape that I had to come over to fix it.
While we were walking on the street we started discussing about XP vs. Vista and how much Vista sucks.After a few minutes a random stranger on the street barges in on the discussion how much Vista really sucked.
Yes people, a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on Vista.
It simply sucks that much.Windows 7 will probably be a lot better since it is pretty much impossible to do worse.
Vista simply feels like a big step back.
It's hard to really describe the flaws of Vista but using it simply feels so annoying.Personally, I am wondering.
What the hell is wrong with Vista?
I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe.
What made Vista suck?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538071</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1246377720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or he could just use <a href="http://personalfirewall.comodo.com/download\_firewall.html" title="comodo.com">Comodo Internet Security</a> [comodo.com] which has the firewall and AV together, doesn't bitch all the time or suck up lots of resources, and works great on XP32/64 and Vista 32/64. According to process Explorer it is using a whole 8.2Mb of RAM, took it about 3 days to learn which programs I use and what they do, and has been quick, snappy, and no problems with network shares. IMHO it certainly beats Zone Alarm and why run two programs when the one will do both jobs?</p><p>

 And if he is running the Zone alarm full package I've found this to be more stable and less of a hassle than Zone Alarm. Plus it is free, and who doesn't like free? But they have a nice business class version that my SMB customers are quite happy with. AVG and Zone Alarm IMHO have just gotten too bloated as of late. So if he is having trouble with Zone Alarm i would try Comodo. After all, it won't cost him anything but a little of his time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or he could just use Comodo Internet Security [ comodo.com ] which has the firewall and AV together , does n't bitch all the time or suck up lots of resources , and works great on XP32/64 and Vista 32/64 .
According to process Explorer it is using a whole 8.2Mb of RAM , took it about 3 days to learn which programs I use and what they do , and has been quick , snappy , and no problems with network shares .
IMHO it certainly beats Zone Alarm and why run two programs when the one will do both jobs ?
And if he is running the Zone alarm full package I 've found this to be more stable and less of a hassle than Zone Alarm .
Plus it is free , and who does n't like free ?
But they have a nice business class version that my SMB customers are quite happy with .
AVG and Zone Alarm IMHO have just gotten too bloated as of late .
So if he is having trouble with Zone Alarm i would try Comodo .
After all , it wo n't cost him anything but a little of his time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or he could just use Comodo Internet Security [comodo.com] which has the firewall and AV together, doesn't bitch all the time or suck up lots of resources, and works great on XP32/64 and Vista 32/64.
According to process Explorer it is using a whole 8.2Mb of RAM, took it about 3 days to learn which programs I use and what they do, and has been quick, snappy, and no problems with network shares.
IMHO it certainly beats Zone Alarm and why run two programs when the one will do both jobs?
And if he is running the Zone alarm full package I've found this to be more stable and less of a hassle than Zone Alarm.
Plus it is free, and who doesn't like free?
But they have a nice business class version that my SMB customers are quite happy with.
AVG and Zone Alarm IMHO have just gotten too bloated as of late.
So if he is having trouble with Zone Alarm i would try Comodo.
After all, it won't cost him anything but a little of his time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537819</id>
	<title>WIN 7 64bit on an SSD - feels like next gen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Upgrade people ! XP is a great OS. Windows 7 64 bit supporting over 4gb of ram running on a brand new Solid State Disk (5x faster). It feels like the future is meant to feel !!!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrade people !
XP is a great OS .
Windows 7 64 bit supporting over 4gb of ram running on a brand new Solid State Disk ( 5x faster ) .
It feels like the future is meant to feel ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrade people !
XP is a great OS.
Windows 7 64 bit supporting over 4gb of ram running on a brand new Solid State Disk (5x faster).
It feels like the future is meant to feel !!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537415</id>
	<title>Are you kidding me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"No. Rather than charging you peanuts for maintenance service, we really much rather continue to charge you a large sum of money for the privilege of beta testing our code, then phase it out when it has some resemblance to a release product. Let's be perfectly honest here, when your data is on the line running out pre-release code passed off as released product, you're more likely to pay us large sum of money to ensure the continued existence of your data. AFTER ALL, WE'RE THE ONLY (viable) GAME IN TOWN."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" No .
Rather than charging you peanuts for maintenance service , we really much rather continue to charge you a large sum of money for the privilege of beta testing our code , then phase it out when it has some resemblance to a release product .
Let 's be perfectly honest here , when your data is on the line running out pre-release code passed off as released product , you 're more likely to pay us large sum of money to ensure the continued existence of your data .
AFTER ALL , WE 'RE THE ONLY ( viable ) GAME IN TOWN .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"No.
Rather than charging you peanuts for maintenance service, we really much rather continue to charge you a large sum of money for the privilege of beta testing our code, then phase it out when it has some resemblance to a release product.
Let's be perfectly honest here, when your data is on the line running out pre-release code passed off as released product, you're more likely to pay us large sum of money to ensure the continued existence of your data.
AFTER ALL, WE'RE THE ONLY (viable) GAME IN TOWN.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538479</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1246381800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have 64bit Win7 installed on my desktop here, and it's actually pretty good for gaming. Sucks donkey cock for multimedia, though. I can't even get Handbrake working on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have 64bit Win7 installed on my desktop here , and it 's actually pretty good for gaming .
Sucks donkey cock for multimedia , though .
I ca n't even get Handbrake working on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have 64bit Win7 installed on my desktop here, and it's actually pretty good for gaming.
Sucks donkey cock for multimedia, though.
I can't even get Handbrake working on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537451</id>
	<title>It's not at all the same thing.</title>
	<author>IANAAC</author>
	<datestamp>1246372380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me preface by saying that I use Linux exclusively, save for an XP VM.  With XP, you can still get the most recent releases of software.  Not so with older releases of Linux. There's no way I can run Fedora core 4 even without upgrading EVERYTHING - a huge pain - and then it's not an old distribution anymore. They rely on newer versions of either Gnome or KDE to get the latest versions of the best software to run.
<p>
Try Firefox. Try OpenOffice.  Try Amarok.  Those are just three examples.
</p><p>
Trust me, I've tried (Damn Pepper Pad 3).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me preface by saying that I use Linux exclusively , save for an XP VM .
With XP , you can still get the most recent releases of software .
Not so with older releases of Linux .
There 's no way I can run Fedora core 4 even without upgrading EVERYTHING - a huge pain - and then it 's not an old distribution anymore .
They rely on newer versions of either Gnome or KDE to get the latest versions of the best software to run .
Try Firefox .
Try OpenOffice .
Try Amarok .
Those are just three examples .
Trust me , I 've tried ( Damn Pepper Pad 3 ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me preface by saying that I use Linux exclusively, save for an XP VM.
With XP, you can still get the most recent releases of software.
Not so with older releases of Linux.
There's no way I can run Fedora core 4 even without upgrading EVERYTHING - a huge pain - and then it's not an old distribution anymore.
They rely on newer versions of either Gnome or KDE to get the latest versions of the best software to run.
Try Firefox.
Try OpenOffice.
Try Amarok.
Those are just three examples.
Trust me, I've tried (Damn Pepper Pad 3).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545243</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1246472520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>False. Windows 7 had a sort of Windows XP vitrualised mode that Vista does not have. It's like Wine; some stuff works, some doesn't and some partialy, but it's probably an improvement over Vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>False .
Windows 7 had a sort of Windows XP vitrualised mode that Vista does not have .
It 's like Wine ; some stuff works , some does n't and some partialy , but it 's probably an improvement over Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>False.
Windows 7 had a sort of Windows XP vitrualised mode that Vista does not have.
It's like Wine; some stuff works, some doesn't and some partialy, but it's probably an improvement over Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537333</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537429</id>
	<title>XP activation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246372260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Q to you all: Can I still activate new XP installation?<br>- I haven't even tried, been happy with them (servers) running Linux OS since day 1</p><p>I got few servers some years ago with XP Pro license sticker on them (that doesn't have any expiration date)<br>- NOTE: these licenses have never been activated.</p><p>So, when would be the last date (or was it already?) to activate already purchased and paid licenses?<br>- if it was already, can I ask for refund?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Q to you all : Can I still activate new XP installation ? - I have n't even tried , been happy with them ( servers ) running Linux OS since day 1I got few servers some years ago with XP Pro license sticker on them ( that does n't have any expiration date ) - NOTE : these licenses have never been activated.So , when would be the last date ( or was it already ?
) to activate already purchased and paid licenses ? - if it was already , can I ask for refund ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q to you all: Can I still activate new XP installation?- I haven't even tried, been happy with them (servers) running Linux OS since day 1I got few servers some years ago with XP Pro license sticker on them (that doesn't have any expiration date)- NOTE: these licenses have never been activated.So, when would be the last date (or was it already?
) to activate already purchased and paid licenses?- if it was already, can I ask for refund?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536651</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246366320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea i got an error with win xp so I downgraded to win98.. excellent logic</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea i got an error with win xp so I downgraded to win98.. excellent logic</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea i got an error with win xp so I downgraded to win98.. excellent logic</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537009</id>
	<title>Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246368840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forget regular XP, forget Vista, forget 7, heck even forget the Linux. Windows FLP is the stripped down version you want. Doesn't even require a Genuine Advantage check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget regular XP , forget Vista , forget 7 , heck even forget the Linux .
Windows FLP is the stripped down version you want .
Does n't even require a Genuine Advantage check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget regular XP, forget Vista, forget 7, heck even forget the Linux.
Windows FLP is the stripped down version you want.
Doesn't even require a Genuine Advantage check.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538983</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>node159</author>
	<datestamp>1246388160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or it could be that peoples expectations have changed.</p><p>Technology progresses, there is constant advancement. After Windows 95, there was 98, which was better, but 2000 was the real deal, stabled, rock solid as long as you didn't poke it too much. XP was initially a step back, heaps of issues, slower, but new features, over time the issues got resolved and turned it into a solid reliable OS. I've been using XP as non-admin for a long time now, and time between reinstalls is in years for me.</p><p>Vista on the other hand, is a step back, heaps of issues, but no significant features! That final part is the real issue, if Vista had shipped with all the features that were initially promised, the performance hit might have been justifiable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or it could be that peoples expectations have changed.Technology progresses , there is constant advancement .
After Windows 95 , there was 98 , which was better , but 2000 was the real deal , stabled , rock solid as long as you did n't poke it too much .
XP was initially a step back , heaps of issues , slower , but new features , over time the issues got resolved and turned it into a solid reliable OS .
I 've been using XP as non-admin for a long time now , and time between reinstalls is in years for me.Vista on the other hand , is a step back , heaps of issues , but no significant features !
That final part is the real issue , if Vista had shipped with all the features that were initially promised , the performance hit might have been justifiable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or it could be that peoples expectations have changed.Technology progresses, there is constant advancement.
After Windows 95, there was 98, which was better, but 2000 was the real deal, stabled, rock solid as long as you didn't poke it too much.
XP was initially a step back, heaps of issues, slower, but new features, over time the issues got resolved and turned it into a solid reliable OS.
I've been using XP as non-admin for a long time now, and time between reinstalls is in years for me.Vista on the other hand, is a step back, heaps of issues, but no significant features!
That final part is the real issue, if Vista had shipped with all the features that were initially promised, the performance hit might have been justifiable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538923</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1246387260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Files moving is still slow</p></div></blockquote><p>In other words: IT SUCKS! It's an operating system. It can't handle files effectively... IT SUCKS! I'd explain why this is a serious issue, but it's so obvious that I'd just be stating the obvious. MOVING FILES IS SLOW ?!? An operating system that can't handle files effectively is epic fail. It sucks so bad it doesn't even need an explanation how bad it sucks. It fails at moving files... Performance issues, while moving files... enough said!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Files moving is still slowIn other words : IT SUCKS !
It 's an operating system .
It ca n't handle files effectively... IT SUCKS !
I 'd explain why this is a serious issue , but it 's so obvious that I 'd just be stating the obvious .
MOVING FILES IS SLOW ? ! ?
An operating system that ca n't handle files effectively is epic fail .
It sucks so bad it does n't even need an explanation how bad it sucks .
It fails at moving files... Performance issues , while moving files... enough said !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Files moving is still slowIn other words: IT SUCKS!
It's an operating system.
It can't handle files effectively... IT SUCKS!
I'd explain why this is a serious issue, but it's so obvious that I'd just be stating the obvious.
MOVING FILES IS SLOW ?!?
An operating system that can't handle files effectively is epic fail.
It sucks so bad it doesn't even need an explanation how bad it sucks.
It fails at moving files... Performance issues, while moving files... enough said!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539417</id>
	<title>Re:WIN 7 64bit on an SSD - feels like next gen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246479840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think Snow Leopard on a SSD would feel more like the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Snow Leopard on a SSD would feel more like the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Snow Leopard on a SSD would feel more like the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537743</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>Tony-A</author>
	<datestamp>1246374480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;but it simply feels so hard to describe. What made Vista suck?<br>&gt;Yes people, a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on Vista<br>The victims are wising up.<br>Actually, Vista is not so bad once you get rid of everything that is supposed to make it better.<br>Now watch for Windows 7 (and remember DOW down 777)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; but it simply feels so hard to describe .
What made Vista suck ? &gt; Yes people , a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on VistaThe victims are wising up.Actually , Vista is not so bad once you get rid of everything that is supposed to make it better.Now watch for Windows 7 ( and remember DOW down 777 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;but it simply feels so hard to describe.
What made Vista suck?&gt;Yes people, a total stranger chipped in on a discussion to say his opinion on VistaThe victims are wising up.Actually, Vista is not so bad once you get rid of everything that is supposed to make it better.Now watch for Windows 7 (and remember DOW down 777)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538339</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1246380180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop. Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser.</p></div><p>It's reasonable to say that but wouldn't it make more sense to point the finger at the developers of Zone Alarm and the coding quality of it? You could uninstall that crapware and solve the problem - the Vista firewall is sufficiently good (but I'm not defending it, speaking relatively) with some very nice advanced rule setting options that you don't get in some pay software even (do some work in the advanced settings, make it restrictive by default inbound and outbound, by default it's a little open). What I'm saying is, how exactly is this Vista's fault alone, if the software works on XP? You haven't installed the XP version on Vista have you? <br> <br> Maybe I'm bitter because I've seen far too many infested zombie windows machines with internet security suites reporting everything is peachy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop .
Now , however some sort of incompatibility between Vista , Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser.It 's reasonable to say that but would n't it make more sense to point the finger at the developers of Zone Alarm and the coding quality of it ?
You could uninstall that crapware and solve the problem - the Vista firewall is sufficiently good ( but I 'm not defending it , speaking relatively ) with some very nice advanced rule setting options that you do n't get in some pay software even ( do some work in the advanced settings , make it restrictive by default inbound and outbound , by default it 's a little open ) .
What I 'm saying is , how exactly is this Vista 's fault alone , if the software works on XP ?
You have n't installed the XP version on Vista have you ?
Maybe I 'm bitter because I 've seen far too many infested zombie windows machines with internet security suites reporting everything is peachy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop.
Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser.It's reasonable to say that but wouldn't it make more sense to point the finger at the developers of Zone Alarm and the coding quality of it?
You could uninstall that crapware and solve the problem - the Vista firewall is sufficiently good (but I'm not defending it, speaking relatively) with some very nice advanced rule setting options that you don't get in some pay software even (do some work in the advanced settings, make it restrictive by default inbound and outbound, by default it's a little open).
What I'm saying is, how exactly is this Vista's fault alone, if the software works on XP?
You haven't installed the XP version on Vista have you?
Maybe I'm bitter because I've seen far too many infested zombie windows machines with internet security suites reporting everything is peachy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>DirtyCanuck</author>
	<datestamp>1246368420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where I work we just started taking pre-orders on Windows 7.</p><p>An elderly gentleman came in (today) and was ecstatic to place an order. His son installed it on his computer and he said he has never been happier. He stated he hated Vista and had kept his XP until the beta. I bombarded him with questions and the jist of his satisfaction came from the simplicity and speed Win7 had.</p><p>In my opinion this guy was a prime example that Microsoft might have a winner, both in the eyes of people who are technologically savvy as well as somebody who is anything but.</p><p>I personally still run 32-bit xp on my Core i7 (Except for games, damn DX10), and I have been bitterly against an upgrade for fear of hidden DRM treats down the line. Only time will tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I work we just started taking pre-orders on Windows 7.An elderly gentleman came in ( today ) and was ecstatic to place an order .
His son installed it on his computer and he said he has never been happier .
He stated he hated Vista and had kept his XP until the beta .
I bombarded him with questions and the jist of his satisfaction came from the simplicity and speed Win7 had.In my opinion this guy was a prime example that Microsoft might have a winner , both in the eyes of people who are technologically savvy as well as somebody who is anything but.I personally still run 32-bit xp on my Core i7 ( Except for games , damn DX10 ) , and I have been bitterly against an upgrade for fear of hidden DRM treats down the line .
Only time will tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I work we just started taking pre-orders on Windows 7.An elderly gentleman came in (today) and was ecstatic to place an order.
His son installed it on his computer and he said he has never been happier.
He stated he hated Vista and had kept his XP until the beta.
I bombarded him with questions and the jist of his satisfaction came from the simplicity and speed Win7 had.In my opinion this guy was a prime example that Microsoft might have a winner, both in the eyes of people who are technologically savvy as well as somebody who is anything but.I personally still run 32-bit xp on my Core i7 (Except for games, damn DX10), and I have been bitterly against an upgrade for fear of hidden DRM treats down the line.
Only time will tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540067</id>
	<title>Re:porn can be used to direct it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246445100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know any other as powerful way to direct consumers than to offer them easier access to free porn. Of that they aren't ignorant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know any other as powerful way to direct consumers than to offer them easier access to free porn .
Of that they are n't ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know any other as powerful way to direct consumers than to offer them easier access to free porn.
Of that they aren't ignorant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537841</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537293</id>
	<title>It's just marketing.</title>
	<author>r0tu</author>
	<datestamp>1246371420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is it that M$ can simply put out an OS with a new face and a couple of new features and sell it as a new product, yet no one wonders about how they are being limited to their freedom of choice by their obvious attempt to control the market with crap and make you happy to pay for it.

I think it's funny watching the monkeys pay for crap they already paid for and love paying way over it's value for it.

M$ research is paid by the users who complain their asses off and still use their crap, they exploit the idiots who don't understand technology, and they progress through feeding off other company's devolpments and buying it through the above exploits.

If you ask me, I'm happy MS sucks ass and idiots pay for their crap, it keeps proving that real programmers and technology enthusiests know more than multi billion dollar companies and their feeble attempts to pretend they know technology and how it works with people.

Perhaps if M$ charged and made money other than from simply forcing us to use techology due to their foothold in the market and started putting out what worked and allowing individuals to improve on the techologies, we could truely say they are a proper and fair monopoly who is really looking out for the people and making things work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that M $ can simply put out an OS with a new face and a couple of new features and sell it as a new product , yet no one wonders about how they are being limited to their freedom of choice by their obvious attempt to control the market with crap and make you happy to pay for it .
I think it 's funny watching the monkeys pay for crap they already paid for and love paying way over it 's value for it .
M $ research is paid by the users who complain their asses off and still use their crap , they exploit the idiots who do n't understand technology , and they progress through feeding off other company 's devolpments and buying it through the above exploits .
If you ask me , I 'm happy MS sucks ass and idiots pay for their crap , it keeps proving that real programmers and technology enthusiests know more than multi billion dollar companies and their feeble attempts to pretend they know technology and how it works with people .
Perhaps if M $ charged and made money other than from simply forcing us to use techology due to their foothold in the market and started putting out what worked and allowing individuals to improve on the techologies , we could truely say they are a proper and fair monopoly who is really looking out for the people and making things work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that M$ can simply put out an OS with a new face and a couple of new features and sell it as a new product, yet no one wonders about how they are being limited to their freedom of choice by their obvious attempt to control the market with crap and make you happy to pay for it.
I think it's funny watching the monkeys pay for crap they already paid for and love paying way over it's value for it.
M$ research is paid by the users who complain their asses off and still use their crap, they exploit the idiots who don't understand technology, and they progress through feeding off other company's devolpments and buying it through the above exploits.
If you ask me, I'm happy MS sucks ass and idiots pay for their crap, it keeps proving that real programmers and technology enthusiests know more than multi billion dollar companies and their feeble attempts to pretend they know technology and how it works with people.
Perhaps if M$ charged and made money other than from simply forcing us to use techology due to their foothold in the market and started putting out what worked and allowing individuals to improve on the techologies, we could truely say they are a proper and fair monopoly who is really looking out for the people and making things work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538043</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1246377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT!</i></p><p>How many modem init strings do you still remember? I mean, not that a Google search won't bring them all up. But I actually remember a couple that I actually USED...</p><p>ATZ (reset modem to default)</p><p>ATD 1231231234 (dial, pulse - rarely used)</p><p>ATDT 1231231234 (dial, tone)</p><p>Argh - that's it. But it was enough to test most modems to see if they were working in Hyperterm. I probably only really used these three... Remember those days? (Get off my lawn, yatta yatta)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT ! How many modem init strings do you still remember ?
I mean , not that a Google search wo n't bring them all up .
But I actually remember a couple that I actually USED...ATZ ( reset modem to default ) ATD 1231231234 ( dial , pulse - rarely used ) ATDT 1231231234 ( dial , tone ) Argh - that 's it .
But it was enough to test most modems to see if they were working in Hyperterm .
I probably only really used these three... Remember those days ?
( Get off my lawn , yatta yatta )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT!How many modem init strings do you still remember?
I mean, not that a Google search won't bring them all up.
But I actually remember a couple that I actually USED...ATZ (reset modem to default)ATD 1231231234 (dial, pulse - rarely used)ATDT 1231231234 (dial, tone)Argh - that's it.
But it was enough to test most modems to see if they were working in Hyperterm.
I probably only really used these three... Remember those days?
(Get off my lawn, yatta yatta)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541891</id>
	<title>Re:My Story with XP/Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246461360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Office 2007 is so much nicer than 2003 interface-wise, not to mention that it has been far less buggy. Seriously, after being forced to use Office 2007 for about a week while using the comp-sci lab at school, I couldn't stand using Office 2003 at home anymore (the same  goes for whatever version of OpenOffice I had at the time).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Office 2007 is so much nicer than 2003 interface-wise , not to mention that it has been far less buggy .
Seriously , after being forced to use Office 2007 for about a week while using the comp-sci lab at school , I could n't stand using Office 2003 at home anymore ( the same goes for whatever version of OpenOffice I had at the time ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Office 2007 is so much nicer than 2003 interface-wise, not to mention that it has been far less buggy.
Seriously, after being forced to use Office 2007 for about a week while using the comp-sci lab at school, I couldn't stand using Office 2003 at home anymore (the same  goes for whatever version of OpenOffice I had at the time).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537139</id>
	<title>My first experience with Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246370100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have one token XP box at home and installed Vista Business on our fire station computer and, after working with it for a while, my honest opinion is that Vista sucks major donkey balls. I understand anyone not wanting to install or support it.  It's not just that XP is more familiar, it's that it works better.  I've never done anything but the simplest tasks without a "you sure you want to do this?" pop up in Vista.  Massively annoying.

</p><p>If Linux worked like Vista it would be the laughing stock of the computer world. Yet Microsoft trumpets Vista like it's some kind of victory for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have one token XP box at home and installed Vista Business on our fire station computer and , after working with it for a while , my honest opinion is that Vista sucks major donkey balls .
I understand anyone not wanting to install or support it .
It 's not just that XP is more familiar , it 's that it works better .
I 've never done anything but the simplest tasks without a " you sure you want to do this ?
" pop up in Vista .
Massively annoying .
If Linux worked like Vista it would be the laughing stock of the computer world .
Yet Microsoft trumpets Vista like it 's some kind of victory for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have one token XP box at home and installed Vista Business on our fire station computer and, after working with it for a while, my honest opinion is that Vista sucks major donkey balls.
I understand anyone not wanting to install or support it.
It's not just that XP is more familiar, it's that it works better.
I've never done anything but the simplest tasks without a "you sure you want to do this?
" pop up in Vista.
Massively annoying.
If Linux worked like Vista it would be the laughing stock of the computer world.
Yet Microsoft trumpets Vista like it's some kind of victory for them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537869</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246375680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to demand head FROM a virgin if possible...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to demand head FROM a virgin if possible.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to demand head FROM a virgin if possible...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537483</id>
	<title>Windows XP is dead?</title>
	<author>nausea\_malvarma</author>
	<datestamp>1246372620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll believe it when netcraft confirms it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll believe it when netcraft confirms it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll believe it when netcraft confirms it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542347</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246463220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop.  Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Years ago it was  -- "Windows isn't done until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run"</p><p>Now it will be -- "Windows isn't done until Firefox won't run"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop .
Now , however some sort of incompatibility between Vista , Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser .
.Years ago it was -- " Windows is n't done until Lotus 1-2-3 wo n't run " Now it will be -- " Windows is n't done until Firefox wo n't run "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been defending Vista for some time now since it worked just fine on my laptop.
Now, however some sort of incompatibility between Vista, Firefox and Zone Alarm keeps freezing my browser.
.Years ago it was  -- "Windows isn't done until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run"Now it will be -- "Windows isn't done until Firefox won't run"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537817</id>
	<title>2008 Server has similar UAC problems</title>
	<author>zerofoo</author>
	<datestamp>1246375020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bugs have extended to 2008 server as well.  I've had instances where I (logged in as an admin) could not modify the permissions on the root of a drive - even though UAC was disabled.</p><p>The fix is temporarily enabling UAC, setting the drive permissions, and then re-disabling UAC.</p><p>UAC is a piece of shit, and it even gets in your way when it is DISABLED.</p><p>That's a bug.</p><p>-ted</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bugs have extended to 2008 server as well .
I 've had instances where I ( logged in as an admin ) could not modify the permissions on the root of a drive - even though UAC was disabled.The fix is temporarily enabling UAC , setting the drive permissions , and then re-disabling UAC.UAC is a piece of shit , and it even gets in your way when it is DISABLED.That 's a bug.-ted</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bugs have extended to 2008 server as well.
I've had instances where I (logged in as an admin) could not modify the permissions on the root of a drive - even though UAC was disabled.The fix is temporarily enabling UAC, setting the drive permissions, and then re-disabling UAC.UAC is a piece of shit, and it even gets in your way when it is DISABLED.That's a bug.-ted</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28543765</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>adisakp</author>
	<datestamp>1246468200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself. Blue screens were common. Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south. Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users</p></div><p>
The problem is that back then, you reinstalled the OS and and your apps and you were mostly good to go.  Now you have to install OS, apps, PLUS ANTIVIRUS (if you don't want to be PWNED in 3 seconds), etc.  And *THEN* let everything update over the internet.  The OS updates alone take about 20 reboots and 5-6 hours of downloading and installing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the days when Windows 95 , the OS constantly ate itself .
Blue screens were common .
Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south .
Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users The problem is that back then , you reinstalled the OS and and your apps and you were mostly good to go .
Now you have to install OS , apps , PLUS ANTIVIRUS ( if you do n't want to be PWNED in 3 seconds ) , etc .
And * THEN * let everything update over the internet .
The OS updates alone take about 20 reboots and 5-6 hours of downloading and installing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself.
Blue screens were common.
Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south.
Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users
The problem is that back then, you reinstalled the OS and and your apps and you were mostly good to go.
Now you have to install OS, apps, PLUS ANTIVIRUS (if you don't want to be PWNED in 3 seconds), etc.
And *THEN* let everything update over the internet.
The OS updates alone take about 20 reboots and 5-6 hours of downloading and installing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537405</id>
	<title>Just installed XP for the first time this month</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1246372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a guilty confession to make: I just installed Windows XP this month, after so many years of staunchly rejecting it.  I bought Windows 2000 on the day XP was launched, as a protest.  I wonder if anyone reading this now even remembers the big issue with XP?  Millions of people have already adopted Vista now, even those people who might have griped at first.  At least I managed to carry on for a decade!  (I didn't do it so much for myself as to please a friend, who wants us to play a game that only runs in XP, not 2000.)</p><p>I'm putting my foot down this time, though!  It's my last Windows upgrade, period... seriously!  No, really!  Next time it'll be Linux with a wine chaser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a guilty confession to make : I just installed Windows XP this month , after so many years of staunchly rejecting it .
I bought Windows 2000 on the day XP was launched , as a protest .
I wonder if anyone reading this now even remembers the big issue with XP ?
Millions of people have already adopted Vista now , even those people who might have griped at first .
At least I managed to carry on for a decade !
( I did n't do it so much for myself as to please a friend , who wants us to play a game that only runs in XP , not 2000 .
) I 'm putting my foot down this time , though !
It 's my last Windows upgrade , period... seriously ! No , really !
Next time it 'll be Linux with a wine chaser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a guilty confession to make: I just installed Windows XP this month, after so many years of staunchly rejecting it.
I bought Windows 2000 on the day XP was launched, as a protest.
I wonder if anyone reading this now even remembers the big issue with XP?
Millions of people have already adopted Vista now, even those people who might have griped at first.
At least I managed to carry on for a decade!
(I didn't do it so much for myself as to please a friend, who wants us to play a game that only runs in XP, not 2000.
)I'm putting my foot down this time, though!
It's my last Windows upgrade, period... seriously!  No, really!
Next time it'll be Linux with a wine chaser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537413</id>
	<title>Never the End, Never</title>
	<author>PingPongBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1246372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Due to high customer demand, the right to downgrade 1 to 0 was also continued.</p><p>And in case you need it, Windows 111 base 2 will be a free downgrade to Windows 000.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Due to high customer demand , the right to downgrade 1 to 0 was also continued.And in case you need it , Windows 111 base 2 will be a free downgrade to Windows 000 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Due to high customer demand, the right to downgrade 1 to 0 was also continued.And in case you need it, Windows 111 base 2 will be a free downgrade to Windows 000.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537567</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246373220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the simplicity of W7 is that they returned to naming conventions and menu layout and some naming from XP.  It's closer to XP than Vista and many people I tested it with mentioned that right off the bat.</p><p>Vista's renaming of things in control panel was flat out stupid and retarded. when I look for software install, I look for add-remove programs not "fluffy fun software thingy"  I have seen more users flat out frustrated with Vista because of the complete morons at microsoft that think rearranging menus and renaming things is a good idea.   It's not.  stop it.  In fact murder every employee there that even mentions it.  Throw them off the roof then throw chairs down after them to make sure.</p><p>I'm just waiting to see how they throw in last minute DRM to completely screw up the OS.   I know they will, they are too much whores for the media industry to not to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the simplicity of W7 is that they returned to naming conventions and menu layout and some naming from XP .
It 's closer to XP than Vista and many people I tested it with mentioned that right off the bat.Vista 's renaming of things in control panel was flat out stupid and retarded .
when I look for software install , I look for add-remove programs not " fluffy fun software thingy " I have seen more users flat out frustrated with Vista because of the complete morons at microsoft that think rearranging menus and renaming things is a good idea .
It 's not .
stop it .
In fact murder every employee there that even mentions it .
Throw them off the roof then throw chairs down after them to make sure.I 'm just waiting to see how they throw in last minute DRM to completely screw up the OS .
I know they will , they are too much whores for the media industry to not to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the simplicity of W7 is that they returned to naming conventions and menu layout and some naming from XP.
It's closer to XP than Vista and many people I tested it with mentioned that right off the bat.Vista's renaming of things in control panel was flat out stupid and retarded.
when I look for software install, I look for add-remove programs not "fluffy fun software thingy"  I have seen more users flat out frustrated with Vista because of the complete morons at microsoft that think rearranging menus and renaming things is a good idea.
It's not.
stop it.
In fact murder every employee there that even mentions it.
Throw them off the roof then throw chairs down after them to make sure.I'm just waiting to see how they throw in last minute DRM to completely screw up the OS.
I know they will, they are too much whores for the media industry to not to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537693</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1246374120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm willing to bet that since Windows 7 LOOKS like Vista, it will be a hard sell either way.  MS would have been better off giving it a whole new facelift.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm willing to bet that since Windows 7 LOOKS like Vista , it will be a hard sell either way .
MS would have been better off giving it a whole new facelift .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm willing to bet that since Windows 7 LOOKS like Vista, it will be a hard sell either way.
MS would have been better off giving it a whole new facelift.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536557</id>
	<title>al franken</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>al franken is a big fat dumb faggot turd that fell out of some faggots ass. <br> <br>and the people who voted for him and even dumber faggot turds.<br> <br>faggots are a disgusting drain on society and need to be done away with.</htmltext>
<tokenext>al franken is a big fat dumb faggot turd that fell out of some faggots ass .
and the people who voted for him and even dumber faggot turds .
faggots are a disgusting drain on society and need to be done away with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>al franken is a big fat dumb faggot turd that fell out of some faggots ass.
and the people who voted for him and even dumber faggot turds.
faggots are a disgusting drain on society and need to be done away with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537143</id>
	<title>Is XP really THAT good?</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1246370160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sometimes I wonder how much of the resistance to the new Microsoft OSes is XP being good or the OS being bad.
<br>
<br>
The truth is, computers are still a relatively recent thing; this is the first major, major OS change in a world largely dependent on the well-being of its various corporate networks; the only similar major transition I can think of is OS 9 to OS X, but Macs weren't (and aren't) as widespread in corporate, industrial, or small business environments.
<br>
<br>
So how much of this resistance to change is due to the fact that we've never dealt with this kind of major change before in such a massive environment (and don't have the infrastructure to deal with it well), and how much of it is just people clinging to XP?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes I wonder how much of the resistance to the new Microsoft OSes is XP being good or the OS being bad .
The truth is , computers are still a relatively recent thing ; this is the first major , major OS change in a world largely dependent on the well-being of its various corporate networks ; the only similar major transition I can think of is OS 9 to OS X , but Macs were n't ( and are n't ) as widespread in corporate , industrial , or small business environments .
So how much of this resistance to change is due to the fact that we 've never dealt with this kind of major change before in such a massive environment ( and do n't have the infrastructure to deal with it well ) , and how much of it is just people clinging to XP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes I wonder how much of the resistance to the new Microsoft OSes is XP being good or the OS being bad.
The truth is, computers are still a relatively recent thing; this is the first major, major OS change in a world largely dependent on the well-being of its various corporate networks; the only similar major transition I can think of is OS 9 to OS X, but Macs weren't (and aren't) as widespread in corporate, industrial, or small business environments.
So how much of this resistance to change is due to the fact that we've never dealt with this kind of major change before in such a massive environment (and don't have the infrastructure to deal with it well), and how much of it is just people clinging to XP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545231</id>
	<title>Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'Actually XP was never "bad"....'</p><p>You have a short memory.  XP was awful when it first came out and there were a lot of compatibility issues.  Vista was better out of the box than XP ever was.   People keeping talking about how great XP is but it didnt really get that good until SP2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'Actually XP was never " bad " ....'You have a short memory .
XP was awful when it first came out and there were a lot of compatibility issues .
Vista was better out of the box than XP ever was .
People keeping talking about how great XP is but it didnt really get that good until SP2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'Actually XP was never "bad"....'You have a short memory.
XP was awful when it first came out and there were a lot of compatibility issues.
Vista was better out of the box than XP ever was.
People keeping talking about how great XP is but it didnt really get that good until SP2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539317</id>
	<title>Re:Due to monopolists</title>
	<author>the\_wesman</author>
	<datestamp>1246391880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>give it a rest, bro - you speak as if people would choose linux if they "had a choice" - majority rules and the majority wants something familiar and has no interest in linux despite how much a few hundred slashdot nerds like to tout that it's ready for mainstream desktop acceptance - yawn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>give it a rest , bro - you speak as if people would choose linux if they " had a choice " - majority rules and the majority wants something familiar and has no interest in linux despite how much a few hundred slashdot nerds like to tout that it 's ready for mainstream desktop acceptance - yawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>give it a rest, bro - you speak as if people would choose linux if they "had a choice" - majority rules and the majority wants something familiar and has no interest in linux despite how much a few hundred slashdot nerds like to tout that it's ready for mainstream desktop acceptance - yawn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537729</id>
	<title>I still install XP everywhere...</title>
	<author>DiSKiLLeR</author>
	<datestamp>1246374360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still install Windows XP everywhere.... Generally 64bit edition.</p><p>I've played with Windows 7 RC quite a bit on a lot of hardware, however:</p><p>1. It still has quite a few quirky bugs<br>2. It has plenty of compatibility issues. (Running their free XP in a VM fixes that..)<br>3. Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista SP2 + new theme.<br>4. Windows 7 is still dog slow compared to XP.</p><p>At the end of the day, Windows XP is not only champ, but the BEST windows release EVER.</p><p>The sad part is, is Microsoft refuses to sell XP. That just encourages its piracy. If they refuse to sell the customer what they want, the customer just finds alternate ways to get it.</p><p>We do not fucking want Vista, and giving it a new theme (aka 7) and marketting it as something new is no better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still install Windows XP everywhere.... Generally 64bit edition.I 've played with Windows 7 RC quite a bit on a lot of hardware , however : 1 .
It still has quite a few quirky bugs2 .
It has plenty of compatibility issues .
( Running their free XP in a VM fixes that.. ) 3 .
Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista SP2 + new theme.4 .
Windows 7 is still dog slow compared to XP.At the end of the day , Windows XP is not only champ , but the BEST windows release EVER.The sad part is , is Microsoft refuses to sell XP .
That just encourages its piracy .
If they refuse to sell the customer what they want , the customer just finds alternate ways to get it.We do not fucking want Vista , and giving it a new theme ( aka 7 ) and marketting it as something new is no better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still install Windows XP everywhere.... Generally 64bit edition.I've played with Windows 7 RC quite a bit on a lot of hardware, however:1.
It still has quite a few quirky bugs2.
It has plenty of compatibility issues.
(Running their free XP in a VM fixes that..)3.
Windows 7 is nothing more than Vista SP2 + new theme.4.
Windows 7 is still dog slow compared to XP.At the end of the day, Windows XP is not only champ, but the BEST windows release EVER.The sad part is, is Microsoft refuses to sell XP.
That just encourages its piracy.
If they refuse to sell the customer what they want, the customer just finds alternate ways to get it.We do not fucking want Vista, and giving it a new theme (aka 7) and marketting it as something new is no better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>TheRealMindChild</author>
	<datestamp>1246368120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know what amazes me. Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself. Blue screens were common. Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south. Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what? For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do. You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it. The OS blows and that's that. Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT! Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card doesn't plug in, magically know which network is yours and your password without asking, and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.<br> <br>I'm out of beer.<br> <br>I'll be back.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what amazes me .
Back in the days when Windows 95 , the OS constantly ate itself .
Blue screens were common .
Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south .
Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what ?
For whatever reason , they did n't complain nearly as much as you people do .
You have a piece of shit software firewall that is n't playing nice with your Vista and * BAM * that 's it .
The OS blows and that 's that .
Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT !
Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card does n't plug in , magically know which network is yours and your password without asking , and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin .
I 'm out of beer .
I 'll be back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what amazes me.
Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself.
Blue screens were common.
Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south.
Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what?
For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do.
You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it.
The OS blows and that's that.
Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT!
Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card doesn't plug in, magically know which network is yours and your password without asking, and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.
I'm out of beer.
I'll be back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28551821</id>
	<title>STILL HAPPY WITH WIN98</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246452120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GO WINDOWS98<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...GO!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GO WINDOWS98 ...GO ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GO WINDOWS98 ...GO!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542023</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>Jeff Carr</author>
	<datestamp>1246461900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I am wondering. What the hell is wrong with Vista? I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe. What made Vista suck?</p></div><p>Vista sucks badly mainly because of the way human brains work.  This is a perfect example.
<br> <br>
We don't make logical evaluations and then come up with an answer.  We come up with answers and then collect logical evidence to support it.  That is why first impressions are so important.  Unfortunately, due to incompatible drivers and binary compatibilities Vista sucked out of the box, and they're going to have an impossible time changing that in the minds of people who already know that.
<br> <br>
Everyone is guilty of thinking this way, because it's the way our brains are wired.  There are all kinds of reasons why Vista sucks, but even if they fixed all of those things, it would take something drastic to change the conclusions that we've reached.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I am wondering .
What the hell is wrong with Vista ?
I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe .
What made Vista suck ? Vista sucks badly mainly because of the way human brains work .
This is a perfect example .
We do n't make logical evaluations and then come up with an answer .
We come up with answers and then collect logical evidence to support it .
That is why first impressions are so important .
Unfortunately , due to incompatible drivers and binary compatibilities Vista sucked out of the box , and they 're going to have an impossible time changing that in the minds of people who already know that .
Everyone is guilty of thinking this way , because it 's the way our brains are wired .
There are all kinds of reasons why Vista sucks , but even if they fixed all of those things , it would take something drastic to change the conclusions that we 've reached .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I am wondering.
What the hell is wrong with Vista?
I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe.
What made Vista suck?Vista sucks badly mainly because of the way human brains work.
This is a perfect example.
We don't make logical evaluations and then come up with an answer.
We come up with answers and then collect logical evidence to support it.
That is why first impressions are so important.
Unfortunately, due to incompatible drivers and binary compatibilities Vista sucked out of the box, and they're going to have an impossible time changing that in the minds of people who already know that.
Everyone is guilty of thinking this way, because it's the way our brains are wired.
There are all kinds of reasons why Vista sucks, but even if they fixed all of those things, it would take something drastic to change the conclusions that we've reached.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538093</id>
	<title>Re:This is another reason to switch to Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246377900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fedora Core 3 was released in 2004. XP was released in 2001.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora\_core#Fedora\_Core\_1.E2.80.934<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_xp</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fedora Core 3 was released in 2004 .
XP was released in 2001.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora \ _core # Fedora \ _Core \ _1.E2.80.934http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows \ _xp</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fedora Core 3 was released in 2004.
XP was released in 2001.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fedora\_core#Fedora\_Core\_1.E2.80.934http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows\_xp</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540327</id>
	<title>Settlers III</title>
	<author>Noodlenose</author>
	<datestamp>1246448940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You can pry Windows XP from my cold, dead hands, as nothing else runs Settlers III.
<p>
NN</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can pry Windows XP from my cold , dead hands , as nothing else runs Settlers III .
NN</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can pry Windows XP from my cold, dead hands, as nothing else runs Settlers III.
NN</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542075</id>
	<title>Staying in the Past</title>
	<author>EnOne</author>
	<datestamp>1246462080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried Windows 7, it was supposed to work on my machine and it did, assuming that I never wanted to listen to any sounds or connect to the Internet. The drivers do not exist for my WiFi or on board sound. Other than those two faults it ran flawlessly. I'll keep XP until I have to upgrade, I was the same with Win98SE as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried Windows 7 , it was supposed to work on my machine and it did , assuming that I never wanted to listen to any sounds or connect to the Internet .
The drivers do not exist for my WiFi or on board sound .
Other than those two faults it ran flawlessly .
I 'll keep XP until I have to upgrade , I was the same with Win98SE as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried Windows 7, it was supposed to work on my machine and it did, assuming that I never wanted to listen to any sounds or connect to the Internet.
The drivers do not exist for my WiFi or on board sound.
Other than those two faults it ran flawlessly.
I'll keep XP until I have to upgrade, I was the same with Win98SE as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537059</id>
	<title>What about 2k?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246369380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Psh - I've been using 2k Pro since it was released.  Nine years later I'm just beginning to find a few things here and there that simply refuse to play nice with it (some online streaming video, the latest version of iTunes).  It's so solid I could probably count the number of times it's crashed on me with one hand.</p><p>I'm about ready to upgrade, but since I can't get XP I guess I'll just wait for 7 and hope it lasts another 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Psh - I 've been using 2k Pro since it was released .
Nine years later I 'm just beginning to find a few things here and there that simply refuse to play nice with it ( some online streaming video , the latest version of iTunes ) .
It 's so solid I could probably count the number of times it 's crashed on me with one hand.I 'm about ready to upgrade , but since I ca n't get XP I guess I 'll just wait for 7 and hope it lasts another 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Psh - I've been using 2k Pro since it was released.
Nine years later I'm just beginning to find a few things here and there that simply refuse to play nice with it (some online streaming video, the latest version of iTunes).
It's so solid I could probably count the number of times it's crashed on me with one hand.I'm about ready to upgrade, but since I can't get XP I guess I'll just wait for 7 and hope it lasts another 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28543693</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246467960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista seems, more or less, like an attempt to pull in the same crowd that loves the Mac so much.</p><p>The interface reeks of Mac styling, and maybe people who use Windows don't want pretty, they want functional.</p><p>Vista also came with slews of compatibility issues, poor DX9 performance due to emulation of DX9 via DX10, bugs, security issues, and for some reason a complete system performance downgrade.</p><p>I intend on using XP until Windows 7 proves itself to be a real upgrade, and not another step back like Vista.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista seems , more or less , like an attempt to pull in the same crowd that loves the Mac so much.The interface reeks of Mac styling , and maybe people who use Windows do n't want pretty , they want functional.Vista also came with slews of compatibility issues , poor DX9 performance due to emulation of DX9 via DX10 , bugs , security issues , and for some reason a complete system performance downgrade.I intend on using XP until Windows 7 proves itself to be a real upgrade , and not another step back like Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista seems, more or less, like an attempt to pull in the same crowd that loves the Mac so much.The interface reeks of Mac styling, and maybe people who use Windows don't want pretty, they want functional.Vista also came with slews of compatibility issues, poor DX9 performance due to emulation of DX9 via DX10, bugs, security issues, and for some reason a complete system performance downgrade.I intend on using XP until Windows 7 proves itself to be a real upgrade, and not another step back like Vista.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538159</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1246378440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Groupthink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Groupthink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Groupthink.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537853</id>
	<title>Re:Vista just not worth the cash</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1246375440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Vista is not worth the cash. OSX is $129 when Vista is $300+ thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.</p></div></blockquote><p>Bummer about the expensive hardware dongle though.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista is not worth the cash .
OSX is $ 129 when Vista is $ 300 + thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.Bummer about the expensive hardware dongle though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista is not worth the cash.
OSX is $129 when Vista is $300+ thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.Bummer about the expensive hardware dongle though.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537459</id>
	<title>Re:This is another reason to switch to Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246372440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  Could you point me to a URL where Red Hat offers security patches for current vulnerabilities in Fedora Core 3?  The ISOs are floating around, I'm sure, but Red Had is not providing support for it anymore.  Microsoft, on the other hand, is still providing (at least some) security patches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Could you point me to a URL where Red Hat offers security patches for current vulnerabilities in Fedora Core 3 ?
The ISOs are floating around , I 'm sure , but Red Had is not providing support for it anymore .
Microsoft , on the other hand , is still providing ( at least some ) security patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Could you point me to a URL where Red Hat offers security patches for current vulnerabilities in Fedora Core 3?
The ISOs are floating around, I'm sure, but Red Had is not providing support for it anymore.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is still providing (at least some) security patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28552903</id>
	<title>XP on 2yr old hardware outperforms Vista 2x</title>
	<author>Inconnux</author>
	<datestamp>1246459680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have XP on my desktop and Vista on my laptop... Desktop is 2yrs old (amd64/2gb ram) and the laptop is a brand new toshiba (amdx2 64/ 3gb ram).  I did a simple benchmark test running Fritz 10 benchmark (chess software that I use for position analysis).  XP benchmark was 7.9 (compared to 1.0 on a p4 1ghz)... Vista was 3.4???!!!??? note that this benchmark doesn't include video etc... it benchmarks how fast the analysis runs.  This shows that XP is over TWICE as fast on 2yr old slower hardware than a brand new Vista machine.  After spending a whole day doing tweaks to get Vista to feel somewhat responsive, I was able to get my Fritz 10 benchmark to 3.9... Still pathetic.  I certainly hope Win7 is far faster because Vista is a performance DOG for anyone running performance critical applications.  This is the #1 reason why I tell people to stick with XP as long as possible.... Those who have to upgrade I recommend two different paths... if they are tech dummies, I suggest buying a Mac (something I have NEVER done before) or if they have a clue, I recommend using Linux.  Ubuntu on the Vista laptop flies, yet Vista is just barely usable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have XP on my desktop and Vista on my laptop... Desktop is 2yrs old ( amd64/2gb ram ) and the laptop is a brand new toshiba ( amdx2 64/ 3gb ram ) .
I did a simple benchmark test running Fritz 10 benchmark ( chess software that I use for position analysis ) .
XP benchmark was 7.9 ( compared to 1.0 on a p4 1ghz ) ... Vista was 3.4 ? ? ? ! ! ! ? ? ?
note that this benchmark does n't include video etc... it benchmarks how fast the analysis runs .
This shows that XP is over TWICE as fast on 2yr old slower hardware than a brand new Vista machine .
After spending a whole day doing tweaks to get Vista to feel somewhat responsive , I was able to get my Fritz 10 benchmark to 3.9... Still pathetic .
I certainly hope Win7 is far faster because Vista is a performance DOG for anyone running performance critical applications .
This is the # 1 reason why I tell people to stick with XP as long as possible.... Those who have to upgrade I recommend two different paths... if they are tech dummies , I suggest buying a Mac ( something I have NEVER done before ) or if they have a clue , I recommend using Linux .
Ubuntu on the Vista laptop flies , yet Vista is just barely usable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have XP on my desktop and Vista on my laptop... Desktop is 2yrs old (amd64/2gb ram) and the laptop is a brand new toshiba (amdx2 64/ 3gb ram).
I did a simple benchmark test running Fritz 10 benchmark (chess software that I use for position analysis).
XP benchmark was 7.9 (compared to 1.0 on a p4 1ghz)... Vista was 3.4???!!!???
note that this benchmark doesn't include video etc... it benchmarks how fast the analysis runs.
This shows that XP is over TWICE as fast on 2yr old slower hardware than a brand new Vista machine.
After spending a whole day doing tweaks to get Vista to feel somewhat responsive, I was able to get my Fritz 10 benchmark to 3.9... Still pathetic.
I certainly hope Win7 is far faster because Vista is a performance DOG for anyone running performance critical applications.
This is the #1 reason why I tell people to stick with XP as long as possible.... Those who have to upgrade I recommend two different paths... if they are tech dummies, I suggest buying a Mac (something I have NEVER done before) or if they have a clue, I recommend using Linux.
Ubuntu on the Vista laptop flies, yet Vista is just barely usable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540645</id>
	<title>Re:Due to monopolists</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1246452960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing is, people have apps written before Linux was even invented they still want to run today; and in my opinion your best shot at that is on Windows; the 32-bit versions still can still run 16-bit apps compiled centuries ago.</p><p>Freedom &amp; choice is great and all, no one denies that but practicality usually comes first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing is , people have apps written before Linux was even invented they still want to run today ; and in my opinion your best shot at that is on Windows ; the 32-bit versions still can still run 16-bit apps compiled centuries ago.Freedom &amp; choice is great and all , no one denies that but practicality usually comes first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing is, people have apps written before Linux was even invented they still want to run today; and in my opinion your best shot at that is on Windows; the 32-bit versions still can still run 16-bit apps compiled centuries ago.Freedom &amp; choice is great and all, no one denies that but practicality usually comes first.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959</id>
	<title>Vista just not worth the cash</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246368420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vista is not worth the cash.  OSX is $129 when Vista is $300+ thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.<br><br>On my non-mac PCs I run Linux because it gets the job done.  My mac hardware runs OSX (obviously) with a vmware-windowxp.  I would upgrade my vmware image to vista if vista was reasonably priced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista is not worth the cash .
OSX is $ 129 when Vista is $ 300 + thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.On my non-mac PCs I run Linux because it gets the job done .
My mac hardware runs OSX ( obviously ) with a vmware-windowxp .
I would upgrade my vmware image to vista if vista was reasonably priced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista is not worth the cash.
OSX is $129 when Vista is $300+ thats a giant WTF since OSX is so much better.On my non-mac PCs I run Linux because it gets the job done.
My mac hardware runs OSX (obviously) with a vmware-windowxp.
I would upgrade my vmware image to vista if vista was reasonably priced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542601</id>
	<title>Windows 7 is much better than XP</title>
	<author>tsnorquist</author>
	<datestamp>1246464300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I installed the Windows 7 RC on my 2 year old gaming desktop.  Noted: I skipped Vista on my home machines.  These are my observations of 7.</p><p>1.) The system boots faster with identical applications loaded</p><p>2.) The interface is much snappier in day to day operations - the layout of menus, shortcuts, drives, and peripherals is more intuitive. *Can't give enough praise for the recent files used under each program (big time saver).</p><p>3.) Programs load quicker than XP and use of programs feels snappier.</p><p>4.) The Task Bar is what it always should have been.  The new changes are extremely useful in day to day usage. I especially like the preview box of open windows in groups while pinned.</p><p>5.) Windows Explorer is light years ahead of XP. File management is so much easier now.</p><p>6.) USB support feels better.  I'm getting higher reads/writes off existing usb keys/hard disk drives.</p><p>7.) The interface is nicer looking - I feel like I'm using a modern computer system. I really like the auto size when dragging windows to the side of the screen or top.</p><p>8.) No crashing or lockups as of yet. The RC has been rock solid (I wish I had been able to test the beta, people say it was even quicker).</p><p>Microsoft sold me on Windows 7.  I purchased two copies of the upgrade to home premium for $49 each.  I don't know why people say it's outrageous for the OS.  I'm not sure you're using the same Windows 7 I am, but it's worth every penny MS is asking.</p><p>Noted: I'm an avid Ubuntu user as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I installed the Windows 7 RC on my 2 year old gaming desktop .
Noted : I skipped Vista on my home machines .
These are my observations of 7.1 .
) The system boots faster with identical applications loaded2 .
) The interface is much snappier in day to day operations - the layout of menus , shortcuts , drives , and peripherals is more intuitive .
* Ca n't give enough praise for the recent files used under each program ( big time saver ) .3 .
) Programs load quicker than XP and use of programs feels snappier.4 .
) The Task Bar is what it always should have been .
The new changes are extremely useful in day to day usage .
I especially like the preview box of open windows in groups while pinned.5 .
) Windows Explorer is light years ahead of XP .
File management is so much easier now.6 .
) USB support feels better .
I 'm getting higher reads/writes off existing usb keys/hard disk drives.7 .
) The interface is nicer looking - I feel like I 'm using a modern computer system .
I really like the auto size when dragging windows to the side of the screen or top.8 .
) No crashing or lockups as of yet .
The RC has been rock solid ( I wish I had been able to test the beta , people say it was even quicker ) .Microsoft sold me on Windows 7 .
I purchased two copies of the upgrade to home premium for $ 49 each .
I do n't know why people say it 's outrageous for the OS .
I 'm not sure you 're using the same Windows 7 I am , but it 's worth every penny MS is asking.Noted : I 'm an avid Ubuntu user as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I installed the Windows 7 RC on my 2 year old gaming desktop.
Noted: I skipped Vista on my home machines.
These are my observations of 7.1.
) The system boots faster with identical applications loaded2.
) The interface is much snappier in day to day operations - the layout of menus, shortcuts, drives, and peripherals is more intuitive.
*Can't give enough praise for the recent files used under each program (big time saver).3.
) Programs load quicker than XP and use of programs feels snappier.4.
) The Task Bar is what it always should have been.
The new changes are extremely useful in day to day usage.
I especially like the preview box of open windows in groups while pinned.5.
) Windows Explorer is light years ahead of XP.
File management is so much easier now.6.
) USB support feels better.
I'm getting higher reads/writes off existing usb keys/hard disk drives.7.
) The interface is nicer looking - I feel like I'm using a modern computer system.
I really like the auto size when dragging windows to the side of the screen or top.8.
) No crashing or lockups as of yet.
The RC has been rock solid (I wish I had been able to test the beta, people say it was even quicker).Microsoft sold me on Windows 7.
I purchased two copies of the upgrade to home premium for $49 each.
I don't know why people say it's outrageous for the OS.
I'm not sure you're using the same Windows 7 I am, but it's worth every penny MS is asking.Noted: I'm an avid Ubuntu user as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537679</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246374060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that its beta stability was what you would expect from an alpha, its release stability was what you would expect from beta and its SP1 stability was what you would expect from release. Vista looks fine <b>now</b> of course, now that it's so late in its life cycle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that its beta stability was what you would expect from an alpha , its release stability was what you would expect from beta and its SP1 stability was what you would expect from release .
Vista looks fine now of course , now that it 's so late in its life cycle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that its beta stability was what you would expect from an alpha, its release stability was what you would expect from beta and its SP1 stability was what you would expect from release.
Vista looks fine now of course, now that it's so late in its life cycle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189</id>
	<title>My Story with XP/Vista</title>
	<author>sasha328</author>
	<datestamp>1246370460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used Vista for a short while and also some users (bought new PCs preloaded).<br>I, as the support person, hated it because it took me longer to find my way around it. It is not intuitive for people used to where MS used to place things. I'd say it was similar to going from OS9 to OSX in Mac userland. After a handful to users buying into Vista and then coming to lots of problems in terms of figuring out how to use it, I started recommending downgrades for their and mine sanity's sake.<br>Then I landed a corporate job, and our policy (I set my own, with advice from HQ in the UK) is to stick with XP. My primary reason is that my users are mostly set in their ways, and Vista from UI perspective will be a disaster. The other reason in that some legacy apps will probably cause problems to run. They even cause problems in XP.<br>So, when I order a PC from Dell, I always specify XP as the OS. It comes pre-installed.<br>On a side note, I also downgrade Office 2007 to 2003 Pro, again for usability reasons. I have Select Licenses, so I am "legally" entitled to.<br>Long live XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used Vista for a short while and also some users ( bought new PCs preloaded ) .I , as the support person , hated it because it took me longer to find my way around it .
It is not intuitive for people used to where MS used to place things .
I 'd say it was similar to going from OS9 to OSX in Mac userland .
After a handful to users buying into Vista and then coming to lots of problems in terms of figuring out how to use it , I started recommending downgrades for their and mine sanity 's sake.Then I landed a corporate job , and our policy ( I set my own , with advice from HQ in the UK ) is to stick with XP .
My primary reason is that my users are mostly set in their ways , and Vista from UI perspective will be a disaster .
The other reason in that some legacy apps will probably cause problems to run .
They even cause problems in XP.So , when I order a PC from Dell , I always specify XP as the OS .
It comes pre-installed.On a side note , I also downgrade Office 2007 to 2003 Pro , again for usability reasons .
I have Select Licenses , so I am " legally " entitled to.Long live XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used Vista for a short while and also some users (bought new PCs preloaded).I, as the support person, hated it because it took me longer to find my way around it.
It is not intuitive for people used to where MS used to place things.
I'd say it was similar to going from OS9 to OSX in Mac userland.
After a handful to users buying into Vista and then coming to lots of problems in terms of figuring out how to use it, I started recommending downgrades for their and mine sanity's sake.Then I landed a corporate job, and our policy (I set my own, with advice from HQ in the UK) is to stick with XP.
My primary reason is that my users are mostly set in their ways, and Vista from UI perspective will be a disaster.
The other reason in that some legacy apps will probably cause problems to run.
They even cause problems in XP.So, when I order a PC from Dell, I always specify XP as the OS.
It comes pre-installed.On a side note, I also downgrade Office 2007 to 2003 Pro, again for usability reasons.
I have Select Licenses, so I am "legally" entitled to.Long live XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536949</id>
	<title>Sounds like the OS/2 stories from 10 years ago!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246368360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They said that OS/2 was dead LONG before it actually was! Some still think it's not (see eComStation). Unfortunately, those folks are incorrect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They said that OS/2 was dead LONG before it actually was !
Some still think it 's not ( see eComStation ) .
Unfortunately , those folks are incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They said that OS/2 was dead LONG before it actually was!
Some still think it's not (see eComStation).
Unfortunately, those folks are incorrect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537841</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246375320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Marketing and consumer ignorance are a force hard to stop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Marketing and consumer ignorance are a force hard to stop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Marketing and consumer ignorance are a force hard to stop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537365</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246371900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what amazes me. Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself. Blue screens were common. Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south. Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what? For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do. You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it. The OS blows and that's that. Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT! Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card doesn't plug in, magically know which network is yours and your password without asking, and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.</p><p>I'm out of beer.</p><p>I'll be back.</p></div><p>word</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what amazes me .
Back in the days when Windows 95 , the OS constantly ate itself .
Blue screens were common .
Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south .
Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what ?
For whatever reason , they did n't complain nearly as much as you people do .
You have a piece of shit software firewall that is n't playing nice with your Vista and * BAM * that 's it .
The OS blows and that 's that .
Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT !
Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card does n't plug in , magically know which network is yours and your password without asking , and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.I 'm out of beer.I 'll be back.word</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what amazes me.
Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself.
Blue screens were common.
Rebooting was a constant need when things started going south.
Reinstalling the OS became habit for even the least technical of computer users.... and you know what?
For whatever reason, they didn't complain nearly as much as you people do.
You have a piece of shit software firewall that isn't playing nice with your Vista and *BAM* that's it.
The OS blows and that's that.
Back in my day we wrote init strings to our modems over a serial connection AND LIKED IT!
Now if the newfangled cheap-as-dirt wireless card doesn't plug in, magically know which network is yours and your password without asking, and give you theoretical limits in speed then you BREAK OUT THE PICKFORKS and demand the head of a virgin.I'm out of beer.I'll be back.word
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537141</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>numbski</author>
	<datestamp>1246370160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with Ubuntu.</i></p><p>There, fixed it for you.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)  You really gotta learn to spell that right.  It isn't that hard!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So I 'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I 'm going with Ubuntu.There , fixed it for you .
: ) You really got ta learn to spell that right .
It is n't that hard !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So I'm building a new system for my wife and be sure that I'm going with Ubuntu.There, fixed it for you.
:)  You really gotta learn to spell that right.
It isn't that hard!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473</id>
	<title>Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This trend will stop when Windows 7 is introduce.</p><p>Mark it on the wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This trend will stop when Windows 7 is introduce.Mark it on the wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This trend will stop when Windows 7 is introduce.Mark it on the wall.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537277</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1246371300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So one small glitch and people immediately downgrade to "trusty" XP ? No wonder Linux has such a low deployment then.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So one small glitch and people immediately downgrade to " trusty " XP ?
No wonder Linux has such a low deployment then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So one small glitch and people immediately downgrade to "trusty" XP ?
No wonder Linux has such a low deployment then.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538381</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>realmolo</author>
	<datestamp>1246380660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZoneAlarm? ZONEALARM?!</p><p>Why on earth are you using that piece of shit, when Vista has a better firewall built-in?</p><p>All of your problems would go away if you ditched ZoneAlarm. You simply CANNOT use ZoneAlarm on your computer and expect it to work correctly. Seriously, get rid of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZoneAlarm ?
ZONEALARM ? ! Why on earth are you using that piece of shit , when Vista has a better firewall built-in ? All of your problems would go away if you ditched ZoneAlarm .
You simply CAN NOT use ZoneAlarm on your computer and expect it to work correctly .
Seriously , get rid of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZoneAlarm?
ZONEALARM?!Why on earth are you using that piece of shit, when Vista has a better firewall built-in?All of your problems would go away if you ditched ZoneAlarm.
You simply CANNOT use ZoneAlarm on your computer and expect it to work correctly.
Seriously, get rid of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539707</id>
	<title>XP Collector</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1246440240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wanders through the street with a bell...</p><p>XPCollector: "ring ring ring, bring out your corpses..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wanders through the street with a bell...XPCollector : " ring ring ring , bring out your corpses... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wanders through the street with a bell...XPCollector: "ring ring ring, bring out your corpses..."</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28556909</id>
	<title>Re:ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246545840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RE:  Windows 7 &amp; XP compatibility</p><p>In the major financial services company I worked at, there are more than 22K custom programs in daily use that do not run on Vista (period..); they run on XP just fine.  The company is trying to upgrade from earlier versions (NT, 2000, XP), and it's proving to be quite a challenge.  IF Windows 7's XP compatibility was significantly improvd, this would help.  Of course, then it would not be "Micros&amp;^\%t" would it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RE : Windows 7 &amp; XP compatibilityIn the major financial services company I worked at , there are more than 22K custom programs in daily use that do not run on Vista ( period.. ) ; they run on XP just fine .
The company is trying to upgrade from earlier versions ( NT , 2000 , XP ) , and it 's proving to be quite a challenge .
IF Windows 7 's XP compatibility was significantly improvd , this would help .
Of course , then it would not be " Micros&amp; ^ \ % t " would it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RE:  Windows 7 &amp; XP compatibilityIn the major financial services company I worked at, there are more than 22K custom programs in daily use that do not run on Vista (period..); they run on XP just fine.
The company is trying to upgrade from earlier versions (NT, 2000, XP), and it's proving to be quite a challenge.
IF Windows 7's XP compatibility was significantly improvd, this would help.
Of course, then it would not be "Micros&amp;^\%t" would it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538999</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1246388280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But compare the difference between Windows 95 and Windows 7with the difference between a 1995 Linux distro and a current distro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But compare the difference between Windows 95 and Windows 7with the difference between a 1995 Linux distro and a current distro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But compare the difference between Windows 95 and Windows 7with the difference between a 1995 Linux distro and a current distro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538133</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>the-matt-mobile</author>
	<datestamp>1246378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been happily running Vista since it came out and have never once noticed that stuff in the control panel was renamed.  Everything is dirt simple to find.  And, if you can't find it, there's a search box in the top right hand corner.  I just now typed the word "add" in it and that was all it took - Add/Remove Programs is at the top of the list.  There are some valid things to complain about with Vista - renaming stuff in the control panel doesn't even make the top 100.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been happily running Vista since it came out and have never once noticed that stuff in the control panel was renamed .
Everything is dirt simple to find .
And , if you ca n't find it , there 's a search box in the top right hand corner .
I just now typed the word " add " in it and that was all it took - Add/Remove Programs is at the top of the list .
There are some valid things to complain about with Vista - renaming stuff in the control panel does n't even make the top 100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been happily running Vista since it came out and have never once noticed that stuff in the control panel was renamed.
Everything is dirt simple to find.
And, if you can't find it, there's a search box in the top right hand corner.
I just now typed the word "add" in it and that was all it took - Add/Remove Programs is at the top of the list.
There are some valid things to complain about with Vista - renaming stuff in the control panel doesn't even make the top 100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539261</id>
	<title>Re:Due to monopolists</title>
	<author>defireman</author>
	<datestamp>1246391100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Problem is Linux is too much of a paradigm shift for most people. Good luck getting people to use an OS where the terminal is still required to perform what we can do in one or two clicks in Windows. Not to mention how many programs written for Windows that just will not run under Linux. People want familiarity, not some ivory tower concept of "Freedom" that cause so many free software advocate that froth at the mouth at the mention of the word Microsoft. <br> <br>

Perhaps this will all change with the arrival of a Windows compatible FOSS OS, like ReactOS. People don't need Windows. They just need something that looks like windows, and will run all the programs that windows can run.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Problem is Linux is too much of a paradigm shift for most people .
Good luck getting people to use an OS where the terminal is still required to perform what we can do in one or two clicks in Windows .
Not to mention how many programs written for Windows that just will not run under Linux .
People want familiarity , not some ivory tower concept of " Freedom " that cause so many free software advocate that froth at the mouth at the mention of the word Microsoft .
Perhaps this will all change with the arrival of a Windows compatible FOSS OS , like ReactOS .
People do n't need Windows .
They just need something that looks like windows , and will run all the programs that windows can run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Problem is Linux is too much of a paradigm shift for most people.
Good luck getting people to use an OS where the terminal is still required to perform what we can do in one or two clicks in Windows.
Not to mention how many programs written for Windows that just will not run under Linux.
People want familiarity, not some ivory tower concept of "Freedom" that cause so many free software advocate that froth at the mouth at the mention of the word Microsoft.
Perhaps this will all change with the arrival of a Windows compatible FOSS OS, like ReactOS.
People don't need Windows.
They just need something that looks like windows, and will run all the programs that windows can run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539215</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>simplerThanPossible</author>
	<datestamp>1246390560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But look at the context; look at the numbers:
<br>
<tt>
Windows 3.1--&gt;95           Huge upgrade!
<br>
Windows 95--&gt;7             WTF are you kidding me?!
</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>But look at the context ; look at the numbers : Windows 3.1-- &gt; 95 Huge upgrade !
Windows 95-- &gt; 7 WTF are you kidding me ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But look at the context; look at the numbers:


Windows 3.1--&gt;95           Huge upgrade!
Windows 95--&gt;7             WTF are you kidding me?
!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536957</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>Ruede</author>
	<datestamp>1246368420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i sure hope so. because winxp with ie doesnt support sni. thus making it hard for some hosters...<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server\_Name\_Indication" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server\_Name\_Indication</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i sure hope so .
because winxp with ie doesnt support sni .
thus making it hard for some hosters...http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server \ _Name \ _Indication [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i sure hope so.
because winxp with ie doesnt support sni.
thus making it hard for some hosters...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server\_Name\_Indication [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537655</id>
	<title>Re:Vista just not worth the cash</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1246373940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OSX is not $129. It's the cost of an Apple computer minus the alternatives. You can't put OSX on any computer and have it work without doing stuff that would probably only be legal on Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX is not $ 129 .
It 's the cost of an Apple computer minus the alternatives .
You ca n't put OSX on any computer and have it work without doing stuff that would probably only be legal on Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX is not $129.
It's the cost of an Apple computer minus the alternatives.
You can't put OSX on any computer and have it work without doing stuff that would probably only be legal on Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536839</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246367520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are an ignorant fool to be using a software firewall to begin with and even more so for using Zone Alarm.  I've seen this program fuck up numerous times, and the solution has always been removal of this piece of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are an ignorant fool to be using a software firewall to begin with and even more so for using Zone Alarm .
I 've seen this program fuck up numerous times , and the solution has always been removal of this piece of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are an ignorant fool to be using a software firewall to begin with and even more so for using Zone Alarm.
I've seen this program fuck up numerous times, and the solution has always been removal of this piece of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538597</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1246383240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly what happened with Vista and XP and win98.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what happened with Vista and XP and win98 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what happened with Vista and XP and win98.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537069</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>StonyUK</author>
	<datestamp>1246369620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd go for Windows 7 myself, it is so much better than Vista and not so neolithic as XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd go for Windows 7 myself , it is so much better than Vista and not so neolithic as XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd go for Windows 7 myself, it is so much better than Vista and not so neolithic as XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537311</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>bill\_kress</author>
	<datestamp>1246371480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We never complained because things always got better, not worse.</p><p>(Except Windows ME--I think I heard a complaint about that somewhere along the line)</p><p>And you had a modem!?!?  In my day we had to write our data on a magnetic cassette made for voice and walk it over to it's destination!</p><p>We were happy to get those 110 baud half-duplex acoustic modems!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We never complained because things always got better , not worse .
( Except Windows ME--I think I heard a complaint about that somewhere along the line ) And you had a modem ! ? ! ?
In my day we had to write our data on a magnetic cassette made for voice and walk it over to it 's destination ! We were happy to get those 110 baud half-duplex acoustic modems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We never complained because things always got better, not worse.
(Except Windows ME--I think I heard a complaint about that somewhere along the line)And you had a modem!?!?
In my day we had to write our data on a magnetic cassette made for voice and walk it over to it's destination!We were happy to get those 110 baud half-duplex acoustic modems!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537669</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>vistic</author>
	<datestamp>1246374000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's something to that about Vista being annoying in an indescribable way.</p><p>Then I looked at my screen, I'm using XP, but there's no shiny green start menu button... and when I click on the start menu, it just displays a normal start menu... no guessing about what I want based on what I use the most often.</p><p>I think any future version of Windows would be unbearable for me if I couldn't turn off the new UI to go back to the old Win95/98/2000 style windows and start menu.</p><p>And the odd thing is... I'm primarily a Mac user.</p><p>I see what MS is trying to do, and I just think they're doing it wrong.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's something to that about Vista being annoying in an indescribable way.Then I looked at my screen , I 'm using XP , but there 's no shiny green start menu button... and when I click on the start menu , it just displays a normal start menu... no guessing about what I want based on what I use the most often.I think any future version of Windows would be unbearable for me if I could n't turn off the new UI to go back to the old Win95/98/2000 style windows and start menu.And the odd thing is... I 'm primarily a Mac user.I see what MS is trying to do , and I just think they 're doing it wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's something to that about Vista being annoying in an indescribable way.Then I looked at my screen, I'm using XP, but there's no shiny green start menu button... and when I click on the start menu, it just displays a normal start menu... no guessing about what I want based on what I use the most often.I think any future version of Windows would be unbearable for me if I couldn't turn off the new UI to go back to the old Win95/98/2000 style windows and start menu.And the odd thing is... I'm primarily a Mac user.I see what MS is trying to do, and I just think they're doing it wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536933</id>
	<title>Why would they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246368240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs.</i>
</p><p>That's not necessarily mutually exclusive.  There have always been a substantial number of businesses which don't see a compelling reason to upgrade when a new version of Windows comes out.  85\% of those machines are used primarily for word processing, after all, something which has been "good enough" for a couple of decades.  I worked for a company which was still happily using Windows for Workgroups in 2001.  Add the people who always wait for Service Pack 2 and you're at a pretty big percentage of the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold , more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP , according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs .
That 's not necessarily mutually exclusive .
There have always been a substantial number of businesses which do n't see a compelling reason to upgrade when a new version of Windows comes out .
85 \ % of those machines are used primarily for word processing , after all , something which has been " good enough " for a couple of decades .
I worked for a company which was still happily using Windows for Workgroups in 2001 .
Add the people who always wait for Service Pack 2 and you 're at a pretty big percentage of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In fact, despite Microsoft trumpeting Vista as the most successful version of Windows ever sold, more than half of business PCs have subsequently downgraded Vista-based machines to XP, according to data provided by community-based performance-monitoring network of PCs.
That's not necessarily mutually exclusive.
There have always been a substantial number of businesses which don't see a compelling reason to upgrade when a new version of Windows comes out.
85\% of those machines are used primarily for word processing, after all, something which has been "good enough" for a couple of decades.
I worked for a company which was still happily using Windows for Workgroups in 2001.
Add the people who always wait for Service Pack 2 and you're at a pretty big percentage of the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541799</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>BitByteNybble110</author>
	<datestamp>1246460940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I had a similar experience switching from XP Pro 32-Bit to Vista Business x64.  My MacBook and PC used the same username and password for authenticating so writing to network shares on my PC running XP worked like a charm.
<p>
I did a clean install to Vista Business, remapped all my shares, rebuilt drive level permissions on my data volume (Admins - Full, Users - Read) and made my user a member of the Admins group - Same as XP.  For the life of me my MacBook could read from the Windows shares just fine, but I couldn't write to them.  I tried adjusting Share level permissions, reapplying drive level permissions, no change.
</p><p>
On a hunch - I created a new user group on my PC - OtherAdmins, added my user to OtherAdmins and granted full permissions to OtherAdmins on my data volume - Immediately after that I could write to my network shares.
</p><p>
I would not be surprised if it's somehow tied into the UAC.  Since you have to elevate yourself to Admin on the local machine, it may not grant actual Admin rights to a share, regardless of what user group you are in.  Does it make sense that adding me to another group with the same permissions should work while another doesn't?  No.  Am I surprised by something like this?  No.
</p><p>
I've been generally happy with Vista Business x64 - That's not to say it doesn't have it's quirks.  All systems do.  Most of the issues that I've had stem from having a small fault in my motherboard, which I can't afford to replace at the moment.  So I live with frequent network disconnects and system boot lockups.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I had a similar experience switching from XP Pro 32-Bit to Vista Business x64 .
My MacBook and PC used the same username and password for authenticating so writing to network shares on my PC running XP worked like a charm .
I did a clean install to Vista Business , remapped all my shares , rebuilt drive level permissions on my data volume ( Admins - Full , Users - Read ) and made my user a member of the Admins group - Same as XP .
For the life of me my MacBook could read from the Windows shares just fine , but I could n't write to them .
I tried adjusting Share level permissions , reapplying drive level permissions , no change .
On a hunch - I created a new user group on my PC - OtherAdmins , added my user to OtherAdmins and granted full permissions to OtherAdmins on my data volume - Immediately after that I could write to my network shares .
I would not be surprised if it 's somehow tied into the UAC .
Since you have to elevate yourself to Admin on the local machine , it may not grant actual Admin rights to a share , regardless of what user group you are in .
Does it make sense that adding me to another group with the same permissions should work while another does n't ?
No. Am I surprised by something like this ?
No . I 've been generally happy with Vista Business x64 - That 's not to say it does n't have it 's quirks .
All systems do .
Most of the issues that I 've had stem from having a small fault in my motherboard , which I ca n't afford to replace at the moment .
So I live with frequent network disconnects and system boot lockups .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I had a similar experience switching from XP Pro 32-Bit to Vista Business x64.
My MacBook and PC used the same username and password for authenticating so writing to network shares on my PC running XP worked like a charm.
I did a clean install to Vista Business, remapped all my shares, rebuilt drive level permissions on my data volume (Admins - Full, Users - Read) and made my user a member of the Admins group - Same as XP.
For the life of me my MacBook could read from the Windows shares just fine, but I couldn't write to them.
I tried adjusting Share level permissions, reapplying drive level permissions, no change.
On a hunch - I created a new user group on my PC - OtherAdmins, added my user to OtherAdmins and granted full permissions to OtherAdmins on my data volume - Immediately after that I could write to my network shares.
I would not be surprised if it's somehow tied into the UAC.
Since you have to elevate yourself to Admin on the local machine, it may not grant actual Admin rights to a share, regardless of what user group you are in.
Does it make sense that adding me to another group with the same permissions should work while another doesn't?
No.  Am I surprised by something like this?
No.

I've been generally happy with Vista Business x64 - That's not to say it doesn't have it's quirks.
All systems do.
Most of the issues that I've had stem from having a small fault in my motherboard, which I can't afford to replace at the moment.
So I live with frequent network disconnects and system boot lockups.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541631</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1246459920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The other day I was talking to my dad, who knows about as much about computers as a lamppost, and just out of the blue he started to complain about Vista, wishing he could go back to XP (all without me ever even mentioning the issue to him). That should say something.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The other day I was talking to my dad , who knows about as much about computers as a lamppost , and just out of the blue he started to complain about Vista , wishing he could go back to XP ( all without me ever even mentioning the issue to him ) .
That should say something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other day I was talking to my dad, who knows about as much about computers as a lamppost, and just out of the blue he started to complain about Vista, wishing he could go back to XP (all without me ever even mentioning the issue to him).
That should say something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536851</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you are absolutely certain you need it, stop running Zone Alarm. The inbound software firewall in XP(SP2+)/Vista works fine, and you probably don't need an outbound firewall.</p><p>(If you are using some integrated security package called Zone Alarm, just turn off the firewall part)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you are absolutely certain you need it , stop running Zone Alarm .
The inbound software firewall in XP ( SP2 + ) /Vista works fine , and you probably do n't need an outbound firewall .
( If you are using some integrated security package called Zone Alarm , just turn off the firewall part )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you are absolutely certain you need it, stop running Zone Alarm.
The inbound software firewall in XP(SP2+)/Vista works fine, and you probably don't need an outbound firewall.
(If you are using some integrated security package called Zone Alarm, just turn off the firewall part)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539205</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Technician</author>
	<datestamp>1246390440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My bigges problem with my Wife's Vista laptop is the changes to login authentication on a network.  It took 6 hours and a Google search to solve the problem of why Vista can't log into a SimpleShare fileserver.  The task was simple.  Back up the old laptop to the server.  Connect the new laptop to the wireless network.  Login and transfer the user documents to the new laptop.</p><p>I was not an all day project to connect to a server and network printer for any of the rest of the machines from Windows 95 - Ubuntu.<br>I want my day back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My bigges problem with my Wife 's Vista laptop is the changes to login authentication on a network .
It took 6 hours and a Google search to solve the problem of why Vista ca n't log into a SimpleShare fileserver .
The task was simple .
Back up the old laptop to the server .
Connect the new laptop to the wireless network .
Login and transfer the user documents to the new laptop.I was not an all day project to connect to a server and network printer for any of the rest of the machines from Windows 95 - Ubuntu.I want my day back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My bigges problem with my Wife's Vista laptop is the changes to login authentication on a network.
It took 6 hours and a Google search to solve the problem of why Vista can't log into a SimpleShare fileserver.
The task was simple.
Back up the old laptop to the server.
Connect the new laptop to the wireless network.
Login and transfer the user documents to the new laptop.I was not an all day project to connect to a server and network printer for any of the rest of the machines from Windows 95 - Ubuntu.I want my day back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537645</id>
	<title>virtualbox ftw</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246373820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Screw Windows 7. It might be nice,... but.....<br>Virtualbox 3.0.0 just got released from Sun, which enables experimental OpenGL and DirectX inside the virtual machine.<br>If this version makes it into the next Ubuntu, I'll be quote happily playing all my games inside a virtual system.</p><p>Linux, here I come.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Screw Windows 7 .
It might be nice,... but.....Virtualbox 3.0.0 just got released from Sun , which enables experimental OpenGL and DirectX inside the virtual machine.If this version makes it into the next Ubuntu , I 'll be quote happily playing all my games inside a virtual system.Linux , here I come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Screw Windows 7.
It might be nice,... but.....Virtualbox 3.0.0 just got released from Sun, which enables experimental OpenGL and DirectX inside the virtual machine.If this version makes it into the next Ubuntu, I'll be quote happily playing all my games inside a virtual system.Linux, here I come.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537587</id>
	<title>If they keep extending XP's lifetime...</title>
	<author>chafey</author>
	<datestamp>1246373460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.reactos.org/" title="reactos.org" rel="nofollow">Reactos</a> [reactos.org] may actually catch up providing a suitable replacement</htmltext>
<tokenext>Reactos [ reactos.org ] may actually catch up providing a suitable replacement</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reactos [reactos.org] may actually catch up providing a suitable replacement</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538127</id>
	<title>Re:Vista just not worth the cash</title>
	<author>vaporland</author>
	<datestamp>1246378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OSX 10.6 will be $29 if you bought OSX 10.5 or a new machine that came with it...

Microsoft should follow suit: Win7 is $29 if you paid $339 for Vista Ultimate</htmltext>
<tokenext>OSX 10.6 will be $ 29 if you bought OSX 10.5 or a new machine that came with it.. . Microsoft should follow suit : Win7 is $ 29 if you paid $ 339 for Vista Ultimate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OSX 10.6 will be $29 if you bought OSX 10.5 or a new machine that came with it...

Microsoft should follow suit: Win7 is $29 if you paid $339 for Vista Ultimate</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545373</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246472880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here.  My laptop came with Vista and I intended put XP on it, but never bothered, because Vista worked fine.  For a while.  Now it's sluggish and crashing just plain annoying.  From the beginning it was doing annoying stuff in the background, but the load from those tasks just keeps getting bigger and bigger.  Time to wipe it and put XP on it, when I get some free time to waste.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
My laptop came with Vista and I intended put XP on it , but never bothered , because Vista worked fine .
For a while .
Now it 's sluggish and crashing just plain annoying .
From the beginning it was doing annoying stuff in the background , but the load from those tasks just keeps getting bigger and bigger .
Time to wipe it and put XP on it , when I get some free time to waste .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
My laptop came with Vista and I intended put XP on it, but never bothered, because Vista worked fine.
For a while.
Now it's sluggish and crashing just plain annoying.
From the beginning it was doing annoying stuff in the background, but the load from those tasks just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
Time to wipe it and put XP on it, when I get some free time to waste.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537363</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246371900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Shouldn't things be improving and not going "Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself"? Which, among other things, isn't even a grammatically sound statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't things be improving and not going " Back in the days when Windows 95 , the OS constantly ate itself " ?
Which , among other things , is n't even a grammatically sound statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't things be improving and not going "Back in the days when Windows 95, the OS constantly ate itself"?
Which, among other things, isn't even a grammatically sound statement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495</id>
	<title>ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After we took a look at Vista, Who Knew XP would look so good? Actually XP was never "bad", and it's pretty stable considering all the garbage people install on their PCs. Although people say (in surveys) that they don't like "renting" their OS software, I (and my corporate clients) wouldn't mind at all paying a yearly fee for ongoing maintenance of XP, or, perhaps for a new 3 or 5-year license with "support". And since the Web is so good for self-support for some time now, we would just be looking for maintenance releases and security updates. And we already "rent" many of our applications, from security suites to corporate apps with support. Microsoft would benefit because they would effectively get "us" to be purchasing OS licenses just the same as if we bought Windows 7 (or whatever). The resellers would be losers of course, coz we wouldn't be buying so much new hardware, but that's not especially "our" problem. For business use, anything over 1.6 GHz (sometimes even slower!)/512MB RAM or so is just icing on the cake for XP. It runs pretty well in that minimum configuration. It would be much cheaper than a change to a new version of Windows. And it does EVERYTHING we need, doesn't it? ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After we took a look at Vista , Who Knew XP would look so good ?
Actually XP was never " bad " , and it 's pretty stable considering all the garbage people install on their PCs .
Although people say ( in surveys ) that they do n't like " renting " their OS software , I ( and my corporate clients ) would n't mind at all paying a yearly fee for ongoing maintenance of XP , or , perhaps for a new 3 or 5-year license with " support " .
And since the Web is so good for self-support for some time now , we would just be looking for maintenance releases and security updates .
And we already " rent " many of our applications , from security suites to corporate apps with support .
Microsoft would benefit because they would effectively get " us " to be purchasing OS licenses just the same as if we bought Windows 7 ( or whatever ) .
The resellers would be losers of course , coz we would n't be buying so much new hardware , but that 's not especially " our " problem .
For business use , anything over 1.6 GHz ( sometimes even slower !
) /512MB RAM or so is just icing on the cake for XP .
It runs pretty well in that minimum configuration .
It would be much cheaper than a change to a new version of Windows .
And it does EVERYTHING we need , does n't it ?
ARE YOU LISTENING , MICROSOFT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After we took a look at Vista, Who Knew XP would look so good?
Actually XP was never "bad", and it's pretty stable considering all the garbage people install on their PCs.
Although people say (in surveys) that they don't like "renting" their OS software, I (and my corporate clients) wouldn't mind at all paying a yearly fee for ongoing maintenance of XP, or, perhaps for a new 3 or 5-year license with "support".
And since the Web is so good for self-support for some time now, we would just be looking for maintenance releases and security updates.
And we already "rent" many of our applications, from security suites to corporate apps with support.
Microsoft would benefit because they would effectively get "us" to be purchasing OS licenses just the same as if we bought Windows 7 (or whatever).
The resellers would be losers of course, coz we wouldn't be buying so much new hardware, but that's not especially "our" problem.
For business use, anything over 1.6 GHz (sometimes even slower!
)/512MB RAM or so is just icing on the cake for XP.
It runs pretty well in that minimum configuration.
It would be much cheaper than a change to a new version of Windows.
And it does EVERYTHING we need, doesn't it?
ARE YOU LISTENING, MICROSOFT?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537761</id>
	<title>Re:Windows XP will never die</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1246374600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  I hand a CD with dosbox and blaubox to many friends of my daughter that are interested in a "boomin' stereo".  you can build a subwoofer in 1 hour that will kick the crap out of any store bought one.</p><p>The old Blaubox for subwoofer design will not run under XP ro Vista without really annoying problems.  DosBox does it nice.</p><p>And yes, that old dos program kicks the crud out of the new subwoofer design software apps out there.   I have a even older bandpass box design program that can make a 6" woofer kick the living crud out of most people's dual 12" setups.  It's how I won several trophies and many SPL dragraces back in the day.  I was able to model in software a couple of Bose secret designs, they do scale up very well. think of the acousa-wave radio but in a van size with a pair of 15" driving it.</p><p>no I will not share it with you.  My secret, I'll choose who to release the program and sourcecode to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I hand a CD with dosbox and blaubox to many friends of my daughter that are interested in a " boomin ' stereo " .
you can build a subwoofer in 1 hour that will kick the crap out of any store bought one.The old Blaubox for subwoofer design will not run under XP ro Vista without really annoying problems .
DosBox does it nice.And yes , that old dos program kicks the crud out of the new subwoofer design software apps out there .
I have a even older bandpass box design program that can make a 6 " woofer kick the living crud out of most people 's dual 12 " setups .
It 's how I won several trophies and many SPL dragraces back in the day .
I was able to model in software a couple of Bose secret designs , they do scale up very well .
think of the acousa-wave radio but in a van size with a pair of 15 " driving it.no I will not share it with you .
My secret , I 'll choose who to release the program and sourcecode to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I hand a CD with dosbox and blaubox to many friends of my daughter that are interested in a "boomin' stereo".
you can build a subwoofer in 1 hour that will kick the crap out of any store bought one.The old Blaubox for subwoofer design will not run under XP ro Vista without really annoying problems.
DosBox does it nice.And yes, that old dos program kicks the crud out of the new subwoofer design software apps out there.
I have a even older bandpass box design program that can make a 6" woofer kick the living crud out of most people's dual 12" setups.
It's how I won several trophies and many SPL dragraces back in the day.
I was able to model in software a couple of Bose secret designs, they do scale up very well.
think of the acousa-wave radio but in a van size with a pair of 15" driving it.no I will not share it with you.
My secret, I'll choose who to release the program and sourcecode to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537417</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537107</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1246369860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great story, except it is a KNOWN zonealarm issue.  20 seconds on google would've told you that.  But this is slashdot, so let's blame Microsoft!
<br> <br>
<a href="http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&amp;t=759555&amp;sid=3ece4d689adbaac6cb9dd8a75d47843f&amp;start=30" title="mozillazine.org">http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&amp;t=759555&amp;sid=3ece4d689adbaac6cb9dd8a75d47843f&amp;start=30</a> [mozillazine.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great story , except it is a KNOWN zonealarm issue .
20 seconds on google would 've told you that .
But this is slashdot , so let 's blame Microsoft !
http : //forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php ? f = 9&amp;t = 759555&amp;sid = 3ece4d689adbaac6cb9dd8a75d47843f&amp;start = 30 [ mozillazine.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great story, except it is a KNOWN zonealarm issue.
20 seconds on google would've told you that.
But this is slashdot, so let's blame Microsoft!
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&amp;t=759555&amp;sid=3ece4d689adbaac6cb9dd8a75d47843f&amp;start=30 [mozillazine.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539951</id>
	<title>Re:WIN 7 64bit on an SSD - feels like next gen</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1246443600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It feels like the future is meant to feel !!!!!"</p><p>Expensive?</p><p>(Windows 7 64-bit license + 64-bit processor (admittedly standard nowadays) + 4Gb RAM or more + Solid State Disk + upgrades necessary to get to that point and/or new computer....)</p><p>Or I could just load XP/Linux on "any old machine" and get on with my job without noticing a difference?  This is the point here - who *needs* that kind of hardware, and out of those people who doesn't *already* have it?  Most business machines DO NOT NEED anything approaching that sort of hardware.  For every server with &gt;4Gb RAM *required*, there are a hundred clients that are quite happy on 1Gb.  XP is for the 90\% of machines where 4Gb RAM doesn't even affect anything, let alone "required".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It feels like the future is meant to feel ! ! ! ! ! " Expensive ?
( Windows 7 64-bit license + 64-bit processor ( admittedly standard nowadays ) + 4Gb RAM or more + Solid State Disk + upgrades necessary to get to that point and/or new computer.... ) Or I could just load XP/Linux on " any old machine " and get on with my job without noticing a difference ?
This is the point here - who * needs * that kind of hardware , and out of those people who does n't * already * have it ?
Most business machines DO NOT NEED anything approaching that sort of hardware .
For every server with &gt; 4Gb RAM * required * , there are a hundred clients that are quite happy on 1Gb .
XP is for the 90 \ % of machines where 4Gb RAM does n't even affect anything , let alone " required " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It feels like the future is meant to feel !!!!!"Expensive?
(Windows 7 64-bit license + 64-bit processor (admittedly standard nowadays) + 4Gb RAM or more + Solid State Disk + upgrades necessary to get to that point and/or new computer....)Or I could just load XP/Linux on "any old machine" and get on with my job without noticing a difference?
This is the point here - who *needs* that kind of hardware, and out of those people who doesn't *already* have it?
Most business machines DO NOT NEED anything approaching that sort of hardware.
For every server with &gt;4Gb RAM *required*, there are a hundred clients that are quite happy on 1Gb.
XP is for the 90\% of machines where 4Gb RAM doesn't even affect anything, let alone "required".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537819</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533</id>
	<title>Due to monopolists</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1246382460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When people want XP you give it to them.  People demand a product you produce the supply.</p><p>When the company that controls the main product is a monopoly the goal is to keep soaking you for everything.</p><p>You don't need Vista.  You don't even need Win7.  In fact, there is absolutely no need for either, nor is there a need for XP. 90\% of the people do 99\% of the same things.  Those things can be performed by Linux.</p><p>Stop dictating that the people using computers have to upgrade to a specific product.  Let them  use what they want.</p><p>This is so stupid that it even happens.  It is just so incredibly insane.  We've gotta end this somehow.  End the monopoly and people will have free choice again.  There's no benefit to Microsoft's monopoly.  It isn't benefiting society in any way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When people want XP you give it to them .
People demand a product you produce the supply.When the company that controls the main product is a monopoly the goal is to keep soaking you for everything.You do n't need Vista .
You do n't even need Win7 .
In fact , there is absolutely no need for either , nor is there a need for XP .
90 \ % of the people do 99 \ % of the same things .
Those things can be performed by Linux.Stop dictating that the people using computers have to upgrade to a specific product .
Let them use what they want.This is so stupid that it even happens .
It is just so incredibly insane .
We 've got ta end this somehow .
End the monopoly and people will have free choice again .
There 's no benefit to Microsoft 's monopoly .
It is n't benefiting society in any way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When people want XP you give it to them.
People demand a product you produce the supply.When the company that controls the main product is a monopoly the goal is to keep soaking you for everything.You don't need Vista.
You don't even need Win7.
In fact, there is absolutely no need for either, nor is there a need for XP.
90\% of the people do 99\% of the same things.
Those things can be performed by Linux.Stop dictating that the people using computers have to upgrade to a specific product.
Let them  use what they want.This is so stupid that it even happens.
It is just so incredibly insane.
We've gotta end this somehow.
End the monopoly and people will have free choice again.
There's no benefit to Microsoft's monopoly.
It isn't benefiting society in any way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536505</id>
	<title>Duh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246365360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Naturally businesses do not want to migrate to a more expensive OS. XP works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Naturally businesses do not want to migrate to a more expensive OS .
XP works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Naturally businesses do not want to migrate to a more expensive OS.
XP works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537333</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1246371720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think so.<br>The real reason these computers are running XP is because the software people bought the machine for in the first place doesn't run in Vista yet so it's certainly not going to run in Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so.The real reason these computers are running XP is because the software people bought the machine for in the first place does n't run in Vista yet so it 's certainly not going to run in Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.The real reason these computers are running XP is because the software people bought the machine for in the first place doesn't run in Vista yet so it's certainly not going to run in Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536977</id>
	<title>Soon to be dead</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1246368540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to unofficial sources, the planned "End of Life" for Windows XP will be in December 21 of 2012.</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to unofficial sources , the planned " End of Life " for Windows XP will be in December 21 of 2012 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to unofficial sources, the planned "End of Life" for Windows XP will be in December 21 of 2012.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28551493</id>
	<title>Re:The reason is...</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1246450320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's smart to be cheap? What moron would pay good money for an inferior OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's smart to be cheap ?
What moron would pay good money for an inferior OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's smart to be cheap?
What moron would pay good money for an inferior OS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536563</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537185</id>
	<title>backlash</title>
	<author>shentino</author>
	<datestamp>1246370400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe this is a backlash against being milked by the upgrade gravy train.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe this is a backlash against being milked by the upgrade gravy train .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe this is a backlash against being milked by the upgrade gravy train.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537643</id>
	<title>Skewed stats.</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1246373820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you observe the stats collected in <a href="http://infoworld.com/d/windows/year-after-windows-xps-death-users-keep-it-alive-and-kicking-247?page=0,1" title="infoworld.com">this</a> [infoworld.com] page of the article, one will see that Lenovo and Dell machines constitute a very high percentage of downgrades. However, the other manufacturers are starkly lower in comparison.
<br> <br>
I can't help but believe that this is because Dell and Lenovo are the main suppliers of business laptops in the United States. It's a well-known fact that businesses are super slow at transitioning to new versions of anything significant, <b>especially</b> operating systems. If one is going to make this sensational claim, people in the server community might as well bicker about how adoption to Server 2008 is as slow as molasses right now.
<br> <br>
This will naturally slow once Windows 7 comes to the forefront, but considering how the release dates between the two are so close (Vista came out in 2007, 7 is coming out late this year or next year) and how vastly improved 7 is to Vista, there's no net benefit for businesses to adopt to Vista on user machines.
<br> <br>
It's not like this is new information; it's always been like this. The big difference is that Microsoft is now suffering from taking so goddamn long to release a "meh" operating system and then release the awesome so soon afterwards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you observe the stats collected in this [ infoworld.com ] page of the article , one will see that Lenovo and Dell machines constitute a very high percentage of downgrades .
However , the other manufacturers are starkly lower in comparison .
I ca n't help but believe that this is because Dell and Lenovo are the main suppliers of business laptops in the United States .
It 's a well-known fact that businesses are super slow at transitioning to new versions of anything significant , especially operating systems .
If one is going to make this sensational claim , people in the server community might as well bicker about how adoption to Server 2008 is as slow as molasses right now .
This will naturally slow once Windows 7 comes to the forefront , but considering how the release dates between the two are so close ( Vista came out in 2007 , 7 is coming out late this year or next year ) and how vastly improved 7 is to Vista , there 's no net benefit for businesses to adopt to Vista on user machines .
It 's not like this is new information ; it 's always been like this .
The big difference is that Microsoft is now suffering from taking so goddamn long to release a " meh " operating system and then release the awesome so soon afterwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you observe the stats collected in this [infoworld.com] page of the article, one will see that Lenovo and Dell machines constitute a very high percentage of downgrades.
However, the other manufacturers are starkly lower in comparison.
I can't help but believe that this is because Dell and Lenovo are the main suppliers of business laptops in the United States.
It's a well-known fact that businesses are super slow at transitioning to new versions of anything significant, especially operating systems.
If one is going to make this sensational claim, people in the server community might as well bicker about how adoption to Server 2008 is as slow as molasses right now.
This will naturally slow once Windows 7 comes to the forefront, but considering how the release dates between the two are so close (Vista came out in 2007, 7 is coming out late this year or next year) and how vastly improved 7 is to Vista, there's no net benefit for businesses to adopt to Vista on user machines.
It's not like this is new information; it's always been like this.
The big difference is that Microsoft is now suffering from taking so goddamn long to release a "meh" operating system and then release the awesome so soon afterwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536551</id>
	<title>not a big surprise...</title>
	<author>MarcoAtWork</author>
	<datestamp>1246365660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... I upgraded to vista on my gaming box (for dx10 and to experiment with it) but on my main box there would be no way for me to do that, due to several things I'm using not having drivers for vista at all (or only for vista32). I guess we'll see how things are with windows 7, if the virtual XP included is going to be able to run XP drivers directly then maybe I would consider upgrading, but I kind of doubt that is likely as if you allowed the virtual box direct access to the hardware then it would be easy for it to bring down the whole system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... I upgraded to vista on my gaming box ( for dx10 and to experiment with it ) but on my main box there would be no way for me to do that , due to several things I 'm using not having drivers for vista at all ( or only for vista32 ) .
I guess we 'll see how things are with windows 7 , if the virtual XP included is going to be able to run XP drivers directly then maybe I would consider upgrading , but I kind of doubt that is likely as if you allowed the virtual box direct access to the hardware then it would be easy for it to bring down the whole system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... I upgraded to vista on my gaming box (for dx10 and to experiment with it) but on my main box there would be no way for me to do that, due to several things I'm using not having drivers for vista at all (or only for vista32).
I guess we'll see how things are with windows 7, if the virtual XP included is going to be able to run XP drivers directly then maybe I would consider upgrading, but I kind of doubt that is likely as if you allowed the virtual box direct access to the hardware then it would be easy for it to bring down the whole system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537497</id>
	<title>Re:Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1246372680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds ideal - no Outlook, no solitaire but can run the office stuff which is usually the only reason to have MS windows in the first place.  It would probably be nice in virtual machines and on some hard to upgrade hardware (eg. I have win2k on some small form factor machines where the memory is glued under a heatsink and can't be easily upgraded - but the whole thing is smaller than a full sized CDROM drive).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds ideal - no Outlook , no solitaire but can run the office stuff which is usually the only reason to have MS windows in the first place .
It would probably be nice in virtual machines and on some hard to upgrade hardware ( eg .
I have win2k on some small form factor machines where the memory is glued under a heatsink and ca n't be easily upgraded - but the whole thing is smaller than a full sized CDROM drive ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds ideal - no Outlook, no solitaire but can run the office stuff which is usually the only reason to have MS windows in the first place.
It would probably be nice in virtual machines and on some hard to upgrade hardware (eg.
I have win2k on some small form factor machines where the memory is glued under a heatsink and can't be easily upgraded - but the whole thing is smaller than a full sized CDROM drive).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538023</id>
	<title>Re:Reminds me of something that happened</title>
	<author>adolf</author>
	<datestamp>1246377240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Personally, I am wondering. What the hell is wrong with Vista? I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe. What made Vista suck?</p></div><p>I really am not sure.</p><p>A couple of years ago, I heard all about how bad Vista would suck.  I'm traditionally a Linux user, and had a good working Linux desktop machine before most folks had even heard of Teh Intarweb, but my laptop (a 4-year-old Inspiron 6000) ran XP for business reasons.  Also, I make a fair bit of cash doing odd Windows work on the side.</p><p>So, when Vista got released, I figured:  Well, if it's so horrible, then I should get myself a copy and use it, so I can at least understand how to fix it when it breaks for my clients.</p><p>I picked up a copy of Vista Business, and did a clean install with it on my laptop.</p><p>And guess what?  It worked fine.  Out of the box, it figured out how to deal with my hardware in a very sane fashion (including the winmodem, the SD card reader, the Bluetooth module, the Intel 802.11a/b/g wireless, and the ATI x300 graphics), and presented me with a working computer in short order.</p><p>It wasn't slow.  It wasn't hoggy.  It worked fine, flashy Aero interface and all.</p><p>I eventually did turn off Superfetch[1], because I found that it made bad decisions because of the wide variety of software that I run and that it was faster without it.  And I ended up replacing most of the drivers, because I'm a control freak that way.  But it worked.</p><p>I ran that Vista install until the public beta of Windows 7 hit the streets, and then I did a clean install of that.  It, also, just worked.  (Is still working, in fact.)</p><p>Nothing all that special about the computer:  2 gigs of RAM, slow hard drive, 1920x1200 display, 1.83GHz Pentium M.</p><p>*shrug*</p><p>I think the biggest problem with Vista is that everyone (including layfolk) had been hearing all about just how horrible it was supposed to be, long before it was even released.  I submit that this has more to do with people being human, than any technical problem with the system.</p><p>[1]:  My wife's computer also runs Vista, and it also works fine.  I even left Superfetch turned on for her, because her usage is typical (read: predictable) enough that it's faster with it enabled.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I am wondering .
What the hell is wrong with Vista ?
I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe .
What made Vista suck ? I really am not sure.A couple of years ago , I heard all about how bad Vista would suck .
I 'm traditionally a Linux user , and had a good working Linux desktop machine before most folks had even heard of Teh Intarweb , but my laptop ( a 4-year-old Inspiron 6000 ) ran XP for business reasons .
Also , I make a fair bit of cash doing odd Windows work on the side.So , when Vista got released , I figured : Well , if it 's so horrible , then I should get myself a copy and use it , so I can at least understand how to fix it when it breaks for my clients.I picked up a copy of Vista Business , and did a clean install with it on my laptop.And guess what ?
It worked fine .
Out of the box , it figured out how to deal with my hardware in a very sane fashion ( including the winmodem , the SD card reader , the Bluetooth module , the Intel 802.11a/b/g wireless , and the ATI x300 graphics ) , and presented me with a working computer in short order.It was n't slow .
It was n't hoggy .
It worked fine , flashy Aero interface and all.I eventually did turn off Superfetch [ 1 ] , because I found that it made bad decisions because of the wide variety of software that I run and that it was faster without it .
And I ended up replacing most of the drivers , because I 'm a control freak that way .
But it worked.I ran that Vista install until the public beta of Windows 7 hit the streets , and then I did a clean install of that .
It , also , just worked .
( Is still working , in fact .
) Nothing all that special about the computer : 2 gigs of RAM , slow hard drive , 1920x1200 display , 1.83GHz Pentium M. * shrug * I think the biggest problem with Vista is that everyone ( including layfolk ) had been hearing all about just how horrible it was supposed to be , long before it was even released .
I submit that this has more to do with people being human , than any technical problem with the system .
[ 1 ] : My wife 's computer also runs Vista , and it also works fine .
I even left Superfetch turned on for her , because her usage is typical ( read : predictable ) enough that it 's faster with it enabled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I am wondering.
What the hell is wrong with Vista?
I know it sucks since I suffer using it but it simply feels so hard to describe.
What made Vista suck?I really am not sure.A couple of years ago, I heard all about how bad Vista would suck.
I'm traditionally a Linux user, and had a good working Linux desktop machine before most folks had even heard of Teh Intarweb, but my laptop (a 4-year-old Inspiron 6000) ran XP for business reasons.
Also, I make a fair bit of cash doing odd Windows work on the side.So, when Vista got released, I figured:  Well, if it's so horrible, then I should get myself a copy and use it, so I can at least understand how to fix it when it breaks for my clients.I picked up a copy of Vista Business, and did a clean install with it on my laptop.And guess what?
It worked fine.
Out of the box, it figured out how to deal with my hardware in a very sane fashion (including the winmodem, the SD card reader, the Bluetooth module, the Intel 802.11a/b/g wireless, and the ATI x300 graphics), and presented me with a working computer in short order.It wasn't slow.
It wasn't hoggy.
It worked fine, flashy Aero interface and all.I eventually did turn off Superfetch[1], because I found that it made bad decisions because of the wide variety of software that I run and that it was faster without it.
And I ended up replacing most of the drivers, because I'm a control freak that way.
But it worked.I ran that Vista install until the public beta of Windows 7 hit the streets, and then I did a clean install of that.
It, also, just worked.
(Is still working, in fact.
)Nothing all that special about the computer:  2 gigs of RAM, slow hard drive, 1920x1200 display, 1.83GHz Pentium M.*shrug*I think the biggest problem with Vista is that everyone (including layfolk) had been hearing all about just how horrible it was supposed to be, long before it was even released.
I submit that this has more to do with people being human, than any technical problem with the system.
[1]:  My wife's computer also runs Vista, and it also works fine.
I even left Superfetch turned on for her, because her usage is typical (read: predictable) enough that it's faster with it enabled.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545925</id>
	<title>My experience with the Vista UI</title>
	<author>Elbowgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1246474560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My problem with Vista was mainly to do with the new UI.  I found it cluttered and confining, with fiddly little details that frankly made my skin crawl (those little triangles next to folders M$ nicked from the Mac), and these are still evident in Win7; however I find Win7 far less claustrophobic. I like XP's Classic theme, which gives me the feeling of a nice, open space with no funky pictures or "helpful" UI tricks like exploding menus or windows fading in and out.</p><p>Those UI novelties, like sound schemes which spit Simpsons sound bites when you minimize windows, are cute for about five minutes then get really old really fast.  I already saw XP as a feature-creeped version of Win2000, but Vista/Win7 are OTT in that regard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My problem with Vista was mainly to do with the new UI .
I found it cluttered and confining , with fiddly little details that frankly made my skin crawl ( those little triangles next to folders M $ nicked from the Mac ) , and these are still evident in Win7 ; however I find Win7 far less claustrophobic .
I like XP 's Classic theme , which gives me the feeling of a nice , open space with no funky pictures or " helpful " UI tricks like exploding menus or windows fading in and out.Those UI novelties , like sound schemes which spit Simpsons sound bites when you minimize windows , are cute for about five minutes then get really old really fast .
I already saw XP as a feature-creeped version of Win2000 , but Vista/Win7 are OTT in that regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My problem with Vista was mainly to do with the new UI.
I found it cluttered and confining, with fiddly little details that frankly made my skin crawl (those little triangles next to folders M$ nicked from the Mac), and these are still evident in Win7; however I find Win7 far less claustrophobic.
I like XP's Classic theme, which gives me the feeling of a nice, open space with no funky pictures or "helpful" UI tricks like exploding menus or windows fading in and out.Those UI novelties, like sound schemes which spit Simpsons sound bites when you minimize windows, are cute for about five minutes then get really old really fast.
I already saw XP as a feature-creeped version of Win2000, but Vista/Win7 are OTT in that regard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538887</id>
	<title>Re:My Story with XP/Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246386840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could have just learned to use Vista and support it instead of closing your eyes and crying around and making people backstep. Vista is great and needs much less support. Oh, right, maybe that was another point that made you backstep?</p><p>How about advancing, evolving? Vista + Office 2007 kicks any xp/office 2003 installation. you're 5-8 years back in your head and have not evolved.</p><p>Long live old-aged morrons who don't learn to adapt, as you did back with xp, back with 2000, back with win98, back with win95, back with damn every new thing that came out.</p><p>Every customer that had xp or downgraded to xp now loves vista after helping them for some minutes, showing them why the new thing maybe is good, and how it's good for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could have just learned to use Vista and support it instead of closing your eyes and crying around and making people backstep .
Vista is great and needs much less support .
Oh , right , maybe that was another point that made you backstep ? How about advancing , evolving ?
Vista + Office 2007 kicks any xp/office 2003 installation .
you 're 5-8 years back in your head and have not evolved.Long live old-aged morrons who do n't learn to adapt , as you did back with xp , back with 2000 , back with win98 , back with win95 , back with damn every new thing that came out.Every customer that had xp or downgraded to xp now loves vista after helping them for some minutes , showing them why the new thing maybe is good , and how it 's good for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could have just learned to use Vista and support it instead of closing your eyes and crying around and making people backstep.
Vista is great and needs much less support.
Oh, right, maybe that was another point that made you backstep?How about advancing, evolving?
Vista + Office 2007 kicks any xp/office 2003 installation.
you're 5-8 years back in your head and have not evolved.Long live old-aged morrons who don't learn to adapt, as you did back with xp, back with 2000, back with win98, back with win95, back with damn every new thing that came out.Every customer that had xp or downgraded to xp now loves vista after helping them for some minutes, showing them why the new thing maybe is good, and how it's good for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537551</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246373100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you running SP1 on this machine? I had very similar problems, and i got rid of SP1 and all of them stopped</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you running SP1 on this machine ?
I had very similar problems , and i got rid of SP1 and all of them stopped</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you running SP1 on this machine?
I had very similar problems, and i got rid of SP1 and all of them stopped</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537871</id>
	<title>Re:Count me in</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1246375680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was back in the day when<br>1) the cheap IBM-compatible computer started becoming mainstream and Windows 95 was OEM installed on just about any hardware (loose hard drives came preinstalled with Windows 95, it even came free with video cards) and the alternative was MS-DOS with Windows 3.0<br>2) Apple was going down the drain and MacOS was just as unstable<br>3) Linux was in the early kernel stages - way before KDE or Gnome<br>4) Unix was too expensive and deemed too difficult. DR-DOS/Novell DOS (the only DOS versions with decent memory management) were literally being sabotaged by Microsoft so it couldn't install Windows 3 (which was fairly stable and fast)<br>5) IBM-compatible computer hardware wasn't stable enough to run any server type system - heck anything really mission critical was still implemented by electronics engineers instead of software engineers.<br>6) OS/2 was a good OS but price and Microsoft killed it.</p><p>Things have changed since then. Linux has matured to a full desktop, server and embedded system alternative, Mac OS has gotten Unix/BSD underpinnings and is now rock-solid, Windows 2000 came by and was fairly stable. OS/2 has died, BeOS has come and gone. After nearly 15 years, people have come to expect a certain stability from their OS. If it keeps crashing or is too slow or doesn't do what it's supposed to do, people won't accept it. There are plenty of alternatives right now that are stable and cheaper, why bother waiting on Microsoft to release something acceptable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was back in the day when1 ) the cheap IBM-compatible computer started becoming mainstream and Windows 95 was OEM installed on just about any hardware ( loose hard drives came preinstalled with Windows 95 , it even came free with video cards ) and the alternative was MS-DOS with Windows 3.02 ) Apple was going down the drain and MacOS was just as unstable3 ) Linux was in the early kernel stages - way before KDE or Gnome4 ) Unix was too expensive and deemed too difficult .
DR-DOS/Novell DOS ( the only DOS versions with decent memory management ) were literally being sabotaged by Microsoft so it could n't install Windows 3 ( which was fairly stable and fast ) 5 ) IBM-compatible computer hardware was n't stable enough to run any server type system - heck anything really mission critical was still implemented by electronics engineers instead of software engineers.6 ) OS/2 was a good OS but price and Microsoft killed it.Things have changed since then .
Linux has matured to a full desktop , server and embedded system alternative , Mac OS has gotten Unix/BSD underpinnings and is now rock-solid , Windows 2000 came by and was fairly stable .
OS/2 has died , BeOS has come and gone .
After nearly 15 years , people have come to expect a certain stability from their OS .
If it keeps crashing or is too slow or does n't do what it 's supposed to do , people wo n't accept it .
There are plenty of alternatives right now that are stable and cheaper , why bother waiting on Microsoft to release something acceptable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was back in the day when1) the cheap IBM-compatible computer started becoming mainstream and Windows 95 was OEM installed on just about any hardware (loose hard drives came preinstalled with Windows 95, it even came free with video cards) and the alternative was MS-DOS with Windows 3.02) Apple was going down the drain and MacOS was just as unstable3) Linux was in the early kernel stages - way before KDE or Gnome4) Unix was too expensive and deemed too difficult.
DR-DOS/Novell DOS (the only DOS versions with decent memory management) were literally being sabotaged by Microsoft so it couldn't install Windows 3 (which was fairly stable and fast)5) IBM-compatible computer hardware wasn't stable enough to run any server type system - heck anything really mission critical was still implemented by electronics engineers instead of software engineers.6) OS/2 was a good OS but price and Microsoft killed it.Things have changed since then.
Linux has matured to a full desktop, server and embedded system alternative, Mac OS has gotten Unix/BSD underpinnings and is now rock-solid, Windows 2000 came by and was fairly stable.
OS/2 has died, BeOS has come and gone.
After nearly 15 years, people have come to expect a certain stability from their OS.
If it keeps crashing or is too slow or doesn't do what it's supposed to do, people won't accept it.
There are plenty of alternatives right now that are stable and cheaper, why bother waiting on Microsoft to release something acceptable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539639</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1246439520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>after all, something which has been "good enough" for a couple of decades.</p></div><p>I think memory protection was the killer feature of XP (for everyone coming from w98).</p><p>Maybe Microsoft should sell w7 on MemoryGuard Plus, "protects your memory even better"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>after all , something which has been " good enough " for a couple of decades.I think memory protection was the killer feature of XP ( for everyone coming from w98 ) .Maybe Microsoft should sell w7 on MemoryGuard Plus , " protects your memory even better " ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after all, something which has been "good enough" for a couple of decades.I think memory protection was the killer feature of XP (for everyone coming from w98).Maybe Microsoft should sell w7 on MemoryGuard Plus, "protects your memory even better" ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536933</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537417</id>
	<title>Windows XP will never die</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1246372140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>people will still run Windows XP Pro in Virtual Machines just to run "legacy software" that does not run on Windows Vista, Windows 7.0, etc.</p><p><a href="http://www.virtualbox.org/" title="virtualbox.org">VirtualBox</a> [virtualbox.org] by Sun just reached version 3.0.0 and supports Windows XP, Vista, and 7.0 as both host and guest operating systems. It can even run DOS virtual machines, but has no addons support for DOS.</p><p>For DOS support most people just use <a href="http://www.dosbox.com/" title="dosbox.com">DOSBox</a> [dosbox.com] but it has no printing support. For example Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS runs in it, but since it has no printer support, just select Postscript for a printer and then use Ghostscript or some other Postscript program to drop the Postscript data file on to print it out. After Microsoft went to the Windows NT and up and left the Windows 9X platform, it broke a lot of DOS applications. DOSBox is cool, as it even supports Tandy 1000 standards so that means those DOS video games that selected CGA or Tandy graphics can be played in Tandy mode. That was before EGA and then later VGA was invented.</p><p>Retrocomputing is more than just a fad, for some that have "legacy software" issues they have to use older hardware and older operating systems, or run older operating systems in virtual machines and/or emulators.</p><p>The cost of upgrading "legacy software" to Windows Vista or even Windows 7.0 standards is too high and too difficult for most software companies, plus Windows Vista broke a lot of software development tools including some old versions of Visual Studio as recent as 2002 or 2003. There is a lot of software that businesses need, that cannot be converted to run on Vista or 7.0, which is why Microsoft has that XP Virtual Machine, but they futzed up the XP Virtual machine and it is not 100\% XP compatible. So I am guessing virtual machines like VirtualBox, VMWare, etc will be used to run XP in a virtual machine for better compatibility.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>people will still run Windows XP Pro in Virtual Machines just to run " legacy software " that does not run on Windows Vista , Windows 7.0 , etc.VirtualBox [ virtualbox.org ] by Sun just reached version 3.0.0 and supports Windows XP , Vista , and 7.0 as both host and guest operating systems .
It can even run DOS virtual machines , but has no addons support for DOS.For DOS support most people just use DOSBox [ dosbox.com ] but it has no printing support .
For example Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS runs in it , but since it has no printer support , just select Postscript for a printer and then use Ghostscript or some other Postscript program to drop the Postscript data file on to print it out .
After Microsoft went to the Windows NT and up and left the Windows 9X platform , it broke a lot of DOS applications .
DOSBox is cool , as it even supports Tandy 1000 standards so that means those DOS video games that selected CGA or Tandy graphics can be played in Tandy mode .
That was before EGA and then later VGA was invented.Retrocomputing is more than just a fad , for some that have " legacy software " issues they have to use older hardware and older operating systems , or run older operating systems in virtual machines and/or emulators.The cost of upgrading " legacy software " to Windows Vista or even Windows 7.0 standards is too high and too difficult for most software companies , plus Windows Vista broke a lot of software development tools including some old versions of Visual Studio as recent as 2002 or 2003 .
There is a lot of software that businesses need , that can not be converted to run on Vista or 7.0 , which is why Microsoft has that XP Virtual Machine , but they futzed up the XP Virtual machine and it is not 100 \ % XP compatible .
So I am guessing virtual machines like VirtualBox , VMWare , etc will be used to run XP in a virtual machine for better compatibility .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>people will still run Windows XP Pro in Virtual Machines just to run "legacy software" that does not run on Windows Vista, Windows 7.0, etc.VirtualBox [virtualbox.org] by Sun just reached version 3.0.0 and supports Windows XP, Vista, and 7.0 as both host and guest operating systems.
It can even run DOS virtual machines, but has no addons support for DOS.For DOS support most people just use DOSBox [dosbox.com] but it has no printing support.
For example Wordperfect 5.1 for DOS runs in it, but since it has no printer support, just select Postscript for a printer and then use Ghostscript or some other Postscript program to drop the Postscript data file on to print it out.
After Microsoft went to the Windows NT and up and left the Windows 9X platform, it broke a lot of DOS applications.
DOSBox is cool, as it even supports Tandy 1000 standards so that means those DOS video games that selected CGA or Tandy graphics can be played in Tandy mode.
That was before EGA and then later VGA was invented.Retrocomputing is more than just a fad, for some that have "legacy software" issues they have to use older hardware and older operating systems, or run older operating systems in virtual machines and/or emulators.The cost of upgrading "legacy software" to Windows Vista or even Windows 7.0 standards is too high and too difficult for most software companies, plus Windows Vista broke a lot of software development tools including some old versions of Visual Studio as recent as 2002 or 2003.
There is a lot of software that businesses need, that cannot be converted to run on Vista or 7.0, which is why Microsoft has that XP Virtual Machine, but they futzed up the XP Virtual machine and it is not 100\% XP compatible.
So I am guessing virtual machines like VirtualBox, VMWare, etc will be used to run XP in a virtual machine for better compatibility.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538167</id>
	<title>Re:Is XP really THAT good?</title>
	<author>Pentium100</author>
	<datestamp>1246378560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because we hit an area of diminishing returns. For example, some years ago I upgraded my P100 to a 400MHz K6-2, then to 700MHz Duron, then to Athlon XP 2000+, changed the CPU to 3200+ and finally built a new PC with 2x Opteron 270.</p><p>The first upgrades were really substantial, especially the 100MHz-&gt;400MHz one. The computer was really faster and I could do more with it (and play better games). I built my current PC because I couldn't watch 1080p movies, now I can. The PC isn't really faster than my 3200+ PC despite having four times as many processors (cores) and 2xthe RAM. And it is good enough for me now. Firefox loads fast, video player too. Now video decoding can be done using a video card, so when some kind of better quality than 1080p arrives, I'll just have to replace my video card (and possibly the monitor, it can only do 2048x1536).</p><p>The same with XP. 98 was an improvement over 95, 2000 was an improvement over 98 and XP played games better than 2000 (and then got an integrated firewall). Now I rarely play games, and those that I play support DX9, so I don't need DX10, I no longer want a flashy UI (if Vista came out 5 years ago, I would have upgraded just for the looks).</p><p>Also, what massive environment? I have a lot of PCs, but if I were to upgrade, I would upgrade only one or two (my main PC and possibly my laptop).</p><p>Vista is bad, 7 may be OK for a new PC, but it has to be substantially better than XP for me to install it in my current PC, not just "oh it's about the same, maybe loads faster".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because we hit an area of diminishing returns .
For example , some years ago I upgraded my P100 to a 400MHz K6-2 , then to 700MHz Duron , then to Athlon XP 2000 + , changed the CPU to 3200 + and finally built a new PC with 2x Opteron 270.The first upgrades were really substantial , especially the 100MHz- &gt; 400MHz one .
The computer was really faster and I could do more with it ( and play better games ) .
I built my current PC because I could n't watch 1080p movies , now I can .
The PC is n't really faster than my 3200 + PC despite having four times as many processors ( cores ) and 2xthe RAM .
And it is good enough for me now .
Firefox loads fast , video player too .
Now video decoding can be done using a video card , so when some kind of better quality than 1080p arrives , I 'll just have to replace my video card ( and possibly the monitor , it can only do 2048x1536 ) .The same with XP .
98 was an improvement over 95 , 2000 was an improvement over 98 and XP played games better than 2000 ( and then got an integrated firewall ) .
Now I rarely play games , and those that I play support DX9 , so I do n't need DX10 , I no longer want a flashy UI ( if Vista came out 5 years ago , I would have upgraded just for the looks ) .Also , what massive environment ?
I have a lot of PCs , but if I were to upgrade , I would upgrade only one or two ( my main PC and possibly my laptop ) .Vista is bad , 7 may be OK for a new PC , but it has to be substantially better than XP for me to install it in my current PC , not just " oh it 's about the same , maybe loads faster " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because we hit an area of diminishing returns.
For example, some years ago I upgraded my P100 to a 400MHz K6-2, then to 700MHz Duron, then to Athlon XP 2000+, changed the CPU to 3200+ and finally built a new PC with 2x Opteron 270.The first upgrades were really substantial, especially the 100MHz-&gt;400MHz one.
The computer was really faster and I could do more with it (and play better games).
I built my current PC because I couldn't watch 1080p movies, now I can.
The PC isn't really faster than my 3200+ PC despite having four times as many processors (cores) and 2xthe RAM.
And it is good enough for me now.
Firefox loads fast, video player too.
Now video decoding can be done using a video card, so when some kind of better quality than 1080p arrives, I'll just have to replace my video card (and possibly the monitor, it can only do 2048x1536).The same with XP.
98 was an improvement over 95, 2000 was an improvement over 98 and XP played games better than 2000 (and then got an integrated firewall).
Now I rarely play games, and those that I play support DX9, so I don't need DX10, I no longer want a flashy UI (if Vista came out 5 years ago, I would have upgraded just for the looks).Also, what massive environment?
I have a lot of PCs, but if I were to upgrade, I would upgrade only one or two (my main PC and possibly my laptop).Vista is bad, 7 may be OK for a new PC, but it has to be substantially better than XP for me to install it in my current PC, not just "oh it's about the same, maybe loads faster".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537143</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542205</id>
	<title>Sticking w/XP becasue Win7 hates me</title>
	<author>wilgibson</author>
	<datestamp>1246462560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just got my desktop back up and running after being dead for half a year.  Burnt a Win7 RC1 disc on my laptop and went to install on the desktop since I planned on getting Win7 anyways.  Turns out Win7 hates my DVD drive (Samsung SH-M522C).  Updated the firmware on the drive, still hates it.  Guess I'll have to wait until I can get a new DVD drive... pisses me off because I loved Win7 on my laptop.  It ran so much smoother than Vista, and now I'm used to all the UI tweaks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just got my desktop back up and running after being dead for half a year .
Burnt a Win7 RC1 disc on my laptop and went to install on the desktop since I planned on getting Win7 anyways .
Turns out Win7 hates my DVD drive ( Samsung SH-M522C ) .
Updated the firmware on the drive , still hates it .
Guess I 'll have to wait until I can get a new DVD drive... pisses me off because I loved Win7 on my laptop .
It ran so much smoother than Vista , and now I 'm used to all the UI tweaks : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just got my desktop back up and running after being dead for half a year.
Burnt a Win7 RC1 disc on my laptop and went to install on the desktop since I planned on getting Win7 anyways.
Turns out Win7 hates my DVD drive (Samsung SH-M522C).
Updated the firmware on the drive, still hates it.
Guess I'll have to wait until I can get a new DVD drive... pisses me off because I loved Win7 on my laptop.
It ran so much smoother than Vista, and now I'm used to all the UI tweaks :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28543693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539769
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542347
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539317
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537143
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536933
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537417
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537761
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536563
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28551493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537841
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538381
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28552975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536651
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28556909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28543765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_30_224233_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538071
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542975
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537059
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536933
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28556909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540749
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537761
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536949
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537871
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28552975
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538983
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537365
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539215
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28543765
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538043
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537629
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536651
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538339
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541799
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539205
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538071
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542975
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28542023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537669
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539769
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537841
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28543693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537679
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536999
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28540645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539317
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539261
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537143
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538167
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536957
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536963
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538597
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537567
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538133
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28539131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28551493
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28536505
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537189
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28541891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28545925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28538887
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_30_224233.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_30_224233.28537643
</commentlist>
</conversation>
