<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_12_1334246</id>
	<title>Outlook Inertia the Main Factor Holding Business From Google Apps</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247408580000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Meshach writes <i>"There's an interesting article in PC World claiming that the major factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication interface from Outlook to Google Apps is <a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/168248/outlook\_separation\_anxiety\_holds\_back\_google\_apps.html">employees' unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiar</a>.  Basically, Google is underestimating how attached businesses and their workers are to Office and Outlook in particular. Quoting: 'Google has found out that, yes, many companies are happy to ditch Exchange for Gmail if it means saving money and eliminating the grief of maintaining Exchange in-house. However, and maybe to a degree unexpected by Google, it also discovered that many companies consider it a deal-breaker to lose the functionality that the Outlook-Exchange combo provides, thanks to the deep links that exist between this client-server tandem.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meshach writes " There 's an interesting article in PC World claiming that the major factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees ' unwillingness to give up a tool that 's so familiar .
Basically , Google is underestimating how attached businesses and their workers are to Office and Outlook in particular .
Quoting : 'Google has found out that , yes , many companies are happy to ditch Exchange for Gmail if it means saving money and eliminating the grief of maintaining Exchange in-house .
However , and maybe to a degree unexpected by Google , it also discovered that many companies consider it a deal-breaker to lose the functionality that the Outlook-Exchange combo provides , thanks to the deep links that exist between this client-server tandem .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meshach writes "There's an interesting article in PC World claiming that the major factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees' unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiar.
Basically, Google is underestimating how attached businesses and their workers are to Office and Outlook in particular.
Quoting: 'Google has found out that, yes, many companies are happy to ditch Exchange for Gmail if it means saving money and eliminating the grief of maintaining Exchange in-house.
However, and maybe to a degree unexpected by Google, it also discovered that many companies consider it a deal-breaker to lose the functionality that the Outlook-Exchange combo provides, thanks to the deep links that exist between this client-server tandem.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668023</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247420460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>that SharePoint sucks,</i></p><p>My company runs Sharepoint.  As far as I can tell, it is a document store with version control, a business user's version of source code control minus defect/feature tracking.  But I've also been told that we really don't use Sharepoint correctly, that it's got a lot of nice features and such.</p><p>Could someone explain briefly what Sharepoint really does?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that SharePoint sucks,My company runs Sharepoint .
As far as I can tell , it is a document store with version control , a business user 's version of source code control minus defect/feature tracking .
But I 've also been told that we really do n't use Sharepoint correctly , that it 's got a lot of nice features and such.Could someone explain briefly what Sharepoint really does ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that SharePoint sucks,My company runs Sharepoint.
As far as I can tell, it is a document store with version control, a business user's version of source code control minus defect/feature tracking.
But I've also been told that we really don't use Sharepoint correctly, that it's got a lot of nice features and such.Could someone explain briefly what Sharepoint really does?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667659</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely true</title>
	<author>VJ42</author>
	<datestamp>1247417280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.</p></div><p>Really? What other app will allow me to drag and drop an email into my task list, and set a deadline to follow it up, and not only that but then allow me to drag my newly created task onto my calendar so i can block some time out to act on it. And all the while I can let the whole office knows that I'm unavailable during that time because they can see my calendar. Outlook isn't just a mail app it's quite good at being an all round (albeit basic) time management tool.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really is n't very good.Really ?
What other app will allow me to drag and drop an email into my task list , and set a deadline to follow it up , and not only that but then allow me to drag my newly created task onto my calendar so i can block some time out to act on it .
And all the while I can let the whole office knows that I 'm unavailable during that time because they can see my calendar .
Outlook is n't just a mail app it 's quite good at being an all round ( albeit basic ) time management tool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.Really?
What other app will allow me to drag and drop an email into my task list, and set a deadline to follow it up, and not only that but then allow me to drag my newly created task onto my calendar so i can block some time out to act on it.
And all the while I can let the whole office knows that I'm unavailable during that time because they can see my calendar.
Outlook isn't just a mail app it's quite good at being an all round (albeit basic) time management tool.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669605</id>
	<title>What Windows does wrong</title>
	<author>symbolset</author>
	<datestamp>1247391840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right?</p></div><p>A proper OS adheres to decades of best practice on security without regard to whether discarding the basic principles of security enables "popular" features.
</p><p>Interoperability with past and future versions of the same operating environment and other operating environments - both with applications and data - is a core property of the thing called an "operating system".  Without this property it's not an operating system, it's an operating environment.  The difference is in whether it's suitable a suitable tool for solving a transient problem, or a platform upon which considerable business intelligence can be invested, and whether or not it's a foundation for progress.  An operating system doesn't require an army of lawyers and deliberate engineering to prevent compatibility to defend its market share because it's not a tool for the vendor, it's a tool for the user.
</p><p>A proper operating system comes with a toolchain to migrate it to another hardware platform, because hardware changes and a core principle of operating systems is not to trap its user into using an ephemeral hardware system.
</p><p>There are more core principles of operating systems, but these three should be enough to illustrate that Windows never has been and never will be a "proper" operating system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does Windows do wrong , that your " proper " OS does right ? A proper OS adheres to decades of best practice on security without regard to whether discarding the basic principles of security enables " popular " features .
Interoperability with past and future versions of the same operating environment and other operating environments - both with applications and data - is a core property of the thing called an " operating system " .
Without this property it 's not an operating system , it 's an operating environment .
The difference is in whether it 's suitable a suitable tool for solving a transient problem , or a platform upon which considerable business intelligence can be invested , and whether or not it 's a foundation for progress .
An operating system does n't require an army of lawyers and deliberate engineering to prevent compatibility to defend its market share because it 's not a tool for the vendor , it 's a tool for the user .
A proper operating system comes with a toolchain to migrate it to another hardware platform , because hardware changes and a core principle of operating systems is not to trap its user into using an ephemeral hardware system .
There are more core principles of operating systems , but these three should be enough to illustrate that Windows never has been and never will be a " proper " operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right?A proper OS adheres to decades of best practice on security without regard to whether discarding the basic principles of security enables "popular" features.
Interoperability with past and future versions of the same operating environment and other operating environments - both with applications and data - is a core property of the thing called an "operating system".
Without this property it's not an operating system, it's an operating environment.
The difference is in whether it's suitable a suitable tool for solving a transient problem, or a platform upon which considerable business intelligence can be invested, and whether or not it's a foundation for progress.
An operating system doesn't require an army of lawyers and deliberate engineering to prevent compatibility to defend its market share because it's not a tool for the vendor, it's a tool for the user.
A proper operating system comes with a toolchain to migrate it to another hardware platform, because hardware changes and a core principle of operating systems is not to trap its user into using an ephemeral hardware system.
There are more core principles of operating systems, but these three should be enough to illustrate that Windows never has been and never will be a "proper" operating system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673431</id>
	<title>This is slashdot</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1247518440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So what is a "proper" OS? What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right?</p></div><p>For starters it's a proprietary OS, that's enough for me... I'm sure we all know the rest of the arguments... Besides Microsoft is inherently evil<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Provides a standard</p></div><p>&lt;insert condescending comment, possibly referring to IE&gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is a " proper " OS ?
What does Windows do wrong , that your " proper " OS does right ? For starters it 's a proprietary OS , that 's enough for me... I 'm sure we all know the rest of the arguments... Besides Microsoft is inherently evil : ) Provides a standard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is a "proper" OS?
What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right?For starters it's a proprietary OS, that's enough for me... I'm sure we all know the rest of the arguments... Besides Microsoft is inherently evil :)Provides a standard
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28680973</id>
	<title>Re:Agreed - Too Much of a Paradigm Shift</title>
	<author>imtheguru</author>
	<datestamp>1247515980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google wants me to rethink how I work in order to use their tools. I don't have cute little folders, I have to deal with "labels". I want filters to put mail into folders, not labels, because I don't want to deal with seeing the new mail in my Inbox that I know is irrelevant; I want the Facebook mail in a Facebook folder I can ignore all week long. Searching isn't necessarily as nice as sorting because sometimes my brain might remember someone's initials, but not their full last name. When I want to see all the "K's", I want to see all the K's. All in all, I find it too foreign of a way to work to be truly comfortable.</p> </div><p>Labels can work exactly like folders, and it is trivial to set this up in Gmail. Sorting requires pre-determined rules. Searching uses throw-away rules. Combine the two and you have a very powerful usage paradigm. As Gmail can do both, i see very little merit in this section of your post.</p><p>My previous two employers used GoogleApps. There was some resistance from the masses, but when they were enlightened to the learning curve from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and Outlook versions, they came around very quickly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google wants me to rethink how I work in order to use their tools .
I do n't have cute little folders , I have to deal with " labels " .
I want filters to put mail into folders , not labels , because I do n't want to deal with seeing the new mail in my Inbox that I know is irrelevant ; I want the Facebook mail in a Facebook folder I can ignore all week long .
Searching is n't necessarily as nice as sorting because sometimes my brain might remember someone 's initials , but not their full last name .
When I want to see all the " K 's " , I want to see all the K 's .
All in all , I find it too foreign of a way to work to be truly comfortable .
Labels can work exactly like folders , and it is trivial to set this up in Gmail .
Sorting requires pre-determined rules .
Searching uses throw-away rules .
Combine the two and you have a very powerful usage paradigm .
As Gmail can do both , i see very little merit in this section of your post.My previous two employers used GoogleApps .
There was some resistance from the masses , but when they were enlightened to the learning curve from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and Outlook versions , they came around very quickly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google wants me to rethink how I work in order to use their tools.
I don't have cute little folders, I have to deal with "labels".
I want filters to put mail into folders, not labels, because I don't want to deal with seeing the new mail in my Inbox that I know is irrelevant; I want the Facebook mail in a Facebook folder I can ignore all week long.
Searching isn't necessarily as nice as sorting because sometimes my brain might remember someone's initials, but not their full last name.
When I want to see all the "K's", I want to see all the K's.
All in all, I find it too foreign of a way to work to be truly comfortable.
Labels can work exactly like folders, and it is trivial to set this up in Gmail.
Sorting requires pre-determined rules.
Searching uses throw-away rules.
Combine the two and you have a very powerful usage paradigm.
As Gmail can do both, i see very little merit in this section of your post.My previous two employers used GoogleApps.
There was some resistance from the masses, but when they were enlightened to the learning curve from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and Outlook versions, they came around very quickly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671455</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1247408220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So what is a "proper" OS? What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right?</p></div></blockquote><p>The OS is supposed to provide a layer between the metal and the applications so that the applications can do what they are supposed to do without bothering about doing things to hardware or doing things to system files.  On a decent OS you only have to run Administrative tasks at an admin privelege level.  Security would also be nice, as would a sane and consistant permissions model.  Some would argue early NT was all of those things and MS Windows could certainly become all of those things and probably has to or it will vanish under a pile of malware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is a " proper " OS ?
What does Windows do wrong , that your " proper " OS does right ? The OS is supposed to provide a layer between the metal and the applications so that the applications can do what they are supposed to do without bothering about doing things to hardware or doing things to system files .
On a decent OS you only have to run Administrative tasks at an admin privelege level .
Security would also be nice , as would a sane and consistant permissions model .
Some would argue early NT was all of those things and MS Windows could certainly become all of those things and probably has to or it will vanish under a pile of malware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is a "proper" OS?
What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right?The OS is supposed to provide a layer between the metal and the applications so that the applications can do what they are supposed to do without bothering about doing things to hardware or doing things to system files.
On a decent OS you only have to run Administrative tasks at an admin privelege level.
Security would also be nice, as would a sane and consistant permissions model.
Some would argue early NT was all of those things and MS Windows could certainly become all of those things and probably has to or it will vanish under a pile of malware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668341</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247423820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's the backend that keeps everyone stuck onto Microsoft. Office 2007 was completely different from Office 2003. However, it was also much more stable, and faster. But I have a feeling that the backend infrastructure (Exchange servers, etc.) was the same. Windows Vista and 7 come with deployment and administration tools that IT groups are familiar with. So even though the end user is given a completely different change, the underlying backend technologies stay similar enough to keep people on Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's the backend that keeps everyone stuck onto Microsoft .
Office 2007 was completely different from Office 2003 .
However , it was also much more stable , and faster .
But I have a feeling that the backend infrastructure ( Exchange servers , etc .
) was the same .
Windows Vista and 7 come with deployment and administration tools that IT groups are familiar with .
So even though the end user is given a completely different change , the underlying backend technologies stay similar enough to keep people on Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's the backend that keeps everyone stuck onto Microsoft.
Office 2007 was completely different from Office 2003.
However, it was also much more stable, and faster.
But I have a feeling that the backend infrastructure (Exchange servers, etc.
) was the same.
Windows Vista and 7 come with deployment and administration tools that IT groups are familiar with.
So even though the end user is given a completely different change, the underlying backend technologies stay similar enough to keep people on Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</id>
	<title>Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1247418180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what is a "proper" OS? What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right? Provides a standard, enriched experience where more than just a kernel is standardized? Makes the OS easy to use without a command line? Has a working audio layer? Oh wait... those are all good things.</p><p>What is it that Windows doesn't do, that keeps it from being "proper"? I'd really like to know since it seems that, well, Windows does pretty much everything. You want to do office productivity stuff? Yep, Windows is good at that. Need a web server? Sure it'll do that. Wanna play games? That's fine too. Doing some media production? No problem.</p><p>I get a little tired of this attitude that Windows is such a bad OS and if only people would "see the light" things would be better. Oh really? Then why is it that I can do everything I want with Windows with very little difficulty, which is quite a varied set of things, but when I try to do it on Linux I discover some easy, some very hard, some impossible? From a user standpoint, Windows works well.</p><p>The argument of it not being a "proper" OS to me sounds like generally snobbery, the same sort you get from people who think that only their very limited taste in movies are "proper" movies or only their very limited taste in beer is "proper" beer. No, not really. If Linux works well for you that is wonderful, by all means use it, but don't try and push it as the One True Way(tm) unless you've got something more than condescension to back it up with.</p><p>To most people, a computer is a tool. They aren't in it for a philosophical or semantic debate, they want it to do whatever various functions they need, and do it with a minimum of fuss on their part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what is a " proper " OS ?
What does Windows do wrong , that your " proper " OS does right ?
Provides a standard , enriched experience where more than just a kernel is standardized ?
Makes the OS easy to use without a command line ?
Has a working audio layer ?
Oh wait... those are all good things.What is it that Windows does n't do , that keeps it from being " proper " ?
I 'd really like to know since it seems that , well , Windows does pretty much everything .
You want to do office productivity stuff ?
Yep , Windows is good at that .
Need a web server ?
Sure it 'll do that .
Wan na play games ?
That 's fine too .
Doing some media production ?
No problem.I get a little tired of this attitude that Windows is such a bad OS and if only people would " see the light " things would be better .
Oh really ?
Then why is it that I can do everything I want with Windows with very little difficulty , which is quite a varied set of things , but when I try to do it on Linux I discover some easy , some very hard , some impossible ?
From a user standpoint , Windows works well.The argument of it not being a " proper " OS to me sounds like generally snobbery , the same sort you get from people who think that only their very limited taste in movies are " proper " movies or only their very limited taste in beer is " proper " beer .
No , not really .
If Linux works well for you that is wonderful , by all means use it , but do n't try and push it as the One True Way ( tm ) unless you 've got something more than condescension to back it up with.To most people , a computer is a tool .
They are n't in it for a philosophical or semantic debate , they want it to do whatever various functions they need , and do it with a minimum of fuss on their part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what is a "proper" OS?
What does Windows do wrong, that your "proper" OS does right?
Provides a standard, enriched experience where more than just a kernel is standardized?
Makes the OS easy to use without a command line?
Has a working audio layer?
Oh wait... those are all good things.What is it that Windows doesn't do, that keeps it from being "proper"?
I'd really like to know since it seems that, well, Windows does pretty much everything.
You want to do office productivity stuff?
Yep, Windows is good at that.
Need a web server?
Sure it'll do that.
Wanna play games?
That's fine too.
Doing some media production?
No problem.I get a little tired of this attitude that Windows is such a bad OS and if only people would "see the light" things would be better.
Oh really?
Then why is it that I can do everything I want with Windows with very little difficulty, which is quite a varied set of things, but when I try to do it on Linux I discover some easy, some very hard, some impossible?
From a user standpoint, Windows works well.The argument of it not being a "proper" OS to me sounds like generally snobbery, the same sort you get from people who think that only their very limited taste in movies are "proper" movies or only their very limited taste in beer is "proper" beer.
No, not really.
If Linux works well for you that is wonderful, by all means use it, but don't try and push it as the One True Way(tm) unless you've got something more than condescension to back it up with.To most people, a computer is a tool.
They aren't in it for a philosophical or semantic debate, they want it to do whatever various functions they need, and do it with a minimum of fuss on their part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670935</id>
	<title>My Reasons why I would never recoomend Google Apps</title>
	<author>kzieli</author>
	<datestamp>1247403240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd never recommend use of google apps for a whole different set of reasons:
</p><ol>
<li>Your putting all your data on some one else's server without a contract.</li>
<li>Hence their is no uptime garantee</li>
<li>too many additional points of failure (now if ither google or your internet connection is down you can do nothing)</li>
<li>(from here) all your data ends up hosted in another country. Meaning the host is not bound by the  same privacy laws as you are, which could cause you to be technically non compliant.</li>
</ol><p>And why I personally don't use google apps:
</p><ol>
<li>Most of the time my laptop is not connected to the internet when I'm using</li>
<li>I run 64 bit Linux, for which there is no Google Gears.</li>
</ol><p>All this recent talk of Google wanting to unseat Windows and yet so many of thier products currently require you to be using Windows in order to get full functionality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd never recommend use of google apps for a whole different set of reasons : Your putting all your data on some one else 's server without a contract .
Hence their is no uptime garantee too many additional points of failure ( now if ither google or your internet connection is down you can do nothing ) ( from here ) all your data ends up hosted in another country .
Meaning the host is not bound by the same privacy laws as you are , which could cause you to be technically non compliant .
And why I personally do n't use google apps : Most of the time my laptop is not connected to the internet when I 'm using I run 64 bit Linux , for which there is no Google Gears .
All this recent talk of Google wanting to unseat Windows and yet so many of thier products currently require you to be using Windows in order to get full functionality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd never recommend use of google apps for a whole different set of reasons:

Your putting all your data on some one else's server without a contract.
Hence their is no uptime garantee
too many additional points of failure (now if ither google or your internet connection is down you can do nothing)
(from here) all your data ends up hosted in another country.
Meaning the host is not bound by the  same privacy laws as you are, which could cause you to be technically non compliant.
And why I personally don't use google apps:

Most of the time my laptop is not connected to the internet when I'm using
I run 64 bit Linux, for which there is no Google Gears.
All this recent talk of Google wanting to unseat Windows and yet so many of thier products currently require you to be using Windows in order to get full functionality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671643</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247409720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly. Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.</i> </p><p>Being first to take the high dive is a risk.</p><p> Your product and your market are not well defined. Competitors learn from your mistakes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the bottom line is , if you are coming out with a new product , you do n't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly .
Then it really does n't matter much what comes later , you 're in the money .
Being first to take the high dive is a risk .
Your product and your market are not well defined .
Competitors learn from your mistakes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly.
Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.
Being first to take the high dive is a risk.
Your product and your market are not well defined.
Competitors learn from your mistakes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667891</id>
	<title>Re:Google looking ahead to Wave of future</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1247419140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Email was designed before the advent of interactive discussion boards, there always needs to be a way  to refer to a persons post by their location and absolute character location within lines of text/video/slides/etc.</p><p>We're getting there I was certainly glad when youtube added the ability to link to video the exact part of a video segment you wanted to show someone instead of them having to load it all at once and then scroll to the time.</p><p>The truth is User interfaces are still in the stone age, I've been looking at things like combining things like mind mapping programs + discussion forums + video/presentation software, if anyone gets it right it's going to sell like hotcakes.</p><p>I love applications like the brain and cooliris, because I can see the amazing potential there for the future user interfaces.</p><p><a href="http://www.thebrain.com/" title="thebrain.com">http://www.thebrain.com/</a> [thebrain.com]</p><p><a href="http://www.cooliris.com/" title="cooliris.com">http://www.cooliris.com/</a> [cooliris.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Email was designed before the advent of interactive discussion boards , there always needs to be a way to refer to a persons post by their location and absolute character location within lines of text/video/slides/etc.We 're getting there I was certainly glad when youtube added the ability to link to video the exact part of a video segment you wanted to show someone instead of them having to load it all at once and then scroll to the time.The truth is User interfaces are still in the stone age , I 've been looking at things like combining things like mind mapping programs + discussion forums + video/presentation software , if anyone gets it right it 's going to sell like hotcakes.I love applications like the brain and cooliris , because I can see the amazing potential there for the future user interfaces.http : //www.thebrain.com/ [ thebrain.com ] http : //www.cooliris.com/ [ cooliris.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Email was designed before the advent of interactive discussion boards, there always needs to be a way  to refer to a persons post by their location and absolute character location within lines of text/video/slides/etc.We're getting there I was certainly glad when youtube added the ability to link to video the exact part of a video segment you wanted to show someone instead of them having to load it all at once and then scroll to the time.The truth is User interfaces are still in the stone age, I've been looking at things like combining things like mind mapping programs + discussion forums + video/presentation software, if anyone gets it right it's going to sell like hotcakes.I love applications like the brain and cooliris, because I can see the amazing potential there for the future user interfaces.http://www.thebrain.com/ [thebrain.com]http://www.cooliris.com/ [cooliris.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673211</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1247515380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's why many corporations are still on Office 2003 and see no reason to change.<br>A supplier recently dared sending a spreadsheet in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xlsx format. I think he learned his lesson from the barrage of replies asking "WTF?"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why many corporations are still on Office 2003 and see no reason to change.A supplier recently dared sending a spreadsheet in .xlsx format .
I think he learned his lesson from the barrage of replies asking " WTF ?
" : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why many corporations are still on Office 2003 and see no reason to change.A supplier recently dared sending a spreadsheet in .xlsx format.
I think he learned his lesson from the barrage of replies asking "WTF?
" :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667391</id>
	<title>Re:Appliances are the way to go!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247414880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yahoo already bought Zimbra, a couple years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yahoo already bought Zimbra , a couple years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yahoo already bought Zimbra, a couple years ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667219</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668475</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely true</title>
	<author>brusk</author>
	<datestamp>1247425140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.</p></div><p>I tried--really, seriously tried--to use Thunderbird+Lightning. I gave it a chance, accepted its limitations, used it as my sole email/calendar solution for 2 years. But I've gone back to Outlook because its integration is so much better, and it doesn't make you choose between running a crashprone beta for a decent feature set and having some pretty severe shortcomings. There are a few things Thunderbird did better: its LDAP client is superior, for example. But overall it was just too buggy and the calendar/task system just wasn't reliable, especially in terms of email integration. And many aspects of the Lightning UI are braindead from a design pov.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really is n't very good.I tried--really , seriously tried--to use Thunderbird + Lightning .
I gave it a chance , accepted its limitations , used it as my sole email/calendar solution for 2 years .
But I 've gone back to Outlook because its integration is so much better , and it does n't make you choose between running a crashprone beta for a decent feature set and having some pretty severe shortcomings .
There are a few things Thunderbird did better : its LDAP client is superior , for example .
But overall it was just too buggy and the calendar/task system just was n't reliable , especially in terms of email integration .
And many aspects of the Lightning UI are braindead from a design pov .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.I tried--really, seriously tried--to use Thunderbird+Lightning.
I gave it a chance, accepted its limitations, used it as my sole email/calendar solution for 2 years.
But I've gone back to Outlook because its integration is so much better, and it doesn't make you choose between running a crashprone beta for a decent feature set and having some pretty severe shortcomings.
There are a few things Thunderbird did better: its LDAP client is superior, for example.
But overall it was just too buggy and the calendar/task system just wasn't reliable, especially in terms of email integration.
And many aspects of the Lightning UI are braindead from a design pov.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667525</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247416200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista did the dirty work, and Win7 will get the merit. It sounds familiar?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista did the dirty work , and Win7 will get the merit .
It sounds familiar ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista did the dirty work, and Win7 will get the merit.
It sounds familiar?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672959</id>
	<title>Google can learn from Excel vs Lotus</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1247425140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000052.html" title="joelonsoftware.com" rel="nofollow">Excel versus Lotus</a> [joelonsoftware.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excel versus Lotus [ joelonsoftware.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excel versus Lotus [joelonsoftware.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668109</id>
	<title>Re:Proper operating systems...</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1247421060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What are you talking about, wrt W7 dialogs being so drastically superior to "Linux's file dialogs"?</p><p>KDE (the design's about 5+ years old at this point - since KDE 3):<br>http://commit-digest.org/issues/2007-01-14/files/katetest-kio\_file.png</p><p>The 'file dialog' has been optionally "universalized" in KDE4 via dolphin: http://artipc10.vub.ac.be/serendipity/uploads/screenshots/kde4.1/kde4-desktop.jpg</p><p>Ok, so W7 finally gets similar functionality in a pre-release 7+ years after KDE had it.<br>http://blogs.msdn.com/yvesdolc/archive/2009/01/07/windows-7-libraries-and-the-common-file-dialog.aspx</p><p>Is there something significant I'm missing here, or are you just blowing smoke? The file dialog in W7 is not only almost identical to what KDE has had since early 2002 (no, I'm not claiming they 'stole' anything), but it's also a dialog lacking the vast majority of the function that KDE has in its dialog.</p><p>(Now, GTK2/GNOME, on the other hand, is a bit of an ugly kludge akin to the newer OSX Finder interface, but that is largely an argument of preference, I think.)</p><p>You want to talk about a crappy interface, let's take a look at the paragraph-of-irritation style "file copy" dialog in W7:</p><p>http://www.sevenforums.com/attachments/general-discussion/4566d1234384335-copy-replace-dialog-there-way-get-old-one-like-xp-screen2.png</p><p>Explain to me why I need 1"^2 icons, with sublimated text and the important bits shoved off into a corner or otherwise de-emphasized? It's almost as if they want you to just click "yes" and ignore what it says. How useless (and irritating). KDE4 isn't much better, but at least its evident where the better implementation came from (first):</p><p>http://imagebin.ca/img/8GQHAD.png</p><p>In closing, bitching about the file dialog (presumably in GNOME) as a reason why "linux" is not a modern operating system is comical, especially when the 'major look' as well as many of the nice-to-have features of W7 are (by the opinions of many MS and Linux fans alike) a near-copy of KDE 4 functionality/features/look/feel. And when you consider that it was only a couple years ago when MS got an actual security model on their desktop OS (which still doesn't really work properly). That seems like a pretty obvious requirement for a "modern operating system" to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about , wrt W7 dialogs being so drastically superior to " Linux 's file dialogs " ? KDE ( the design 's about 5 + years old at this point - since KDE 3 ) : http : //commit-digest.org/issues/2007-01-14/files/katetest-kio \ _file.pngThe 'file dialog ' has been optionally " universalized " in KDE4 via dolphin : http : //artipc10.vub.ac.be/serendipity/uploads/screenshots/kde4.1/kde4-desktop.jpgOk , so W7 finally gets similar functionality in a pre-release 7 + years after KDE had it.http : //blogs.msdn.com/yvesdolc/archive/2009/01/07/windows-7-libraries-and-the-common-file-dialog.aspxIs there something significant I 'm missing here , or are you just blowing smoke ?
The file dialog in W7 is not only almost identical to what KDE has had since early 2002 ( no , I 'm not claiming they 'stole ' anything ) , but it 's also a dialog lacking the vast majority of the function that KDE has in its dialog .
( Now , GTK2/GNOME , on the other hand , is a bit of an ugly kludge akin to the newer OSX Finder interface , but that is largely an argument of preference , I think .
) You want to talk about a crappy interface , let 's take a look at the paragraph-of-irritation style " file copy " dialog in W7 : http : //www.sevenforums.com/attachments/general-discussion/4566d1234384335-copy-replace-dialog-there-way-get-old-one-like-xp-screen2.pngExplain to me why I need 1 " ^ 2 icons , with sublimated text and the important bits shoved off into a corner or otherwise de-emphasized ?
It 's almost as if they want you to just click " yes " and ignore what it says .
How useless ( and irritating ) .
KDE4 is n't much better , but at least its evident where the better implementation came from ( first ) : http : //imagebin.ca/img/8GQHAD.pngIn closing , bitching about the file dialog ( presumably in GNOME ) as a reason why " linux " is not a modern operating system is comical , especially when the 'major look ' as well as many of the nice-to-have features of W7 are ( by the opinions of many MS and Linux fans alike ) a near-copy of KDE 4 functionality/features/look/feel .
And when you consider that it was only a couple years ago when MS got an actual security model on their desktop OS ( which still does n't really work properly ) .
That seems like a pretty obvious requirement for a " modern operating system " to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about, wrt W7 dialogs being so drastically superior to "Linux's file dialogs"?KDE (the design's about 5+ years old at this point - since KDE 3):http://commit-digest.org/issues/2007-01-14/files/katetest-kio\_file.pngThe 'file dialog' has been optionally "universalized" in KDE4 via dolphin: http://artipc10.vub.ac.be/serendipity/uploads/screenshots/kde4.1/kde4-desktop.jpgOk, so W7 finally gets similar functionality in a pre-release 7+ years after KDE had it.http://blogs.msdn.com/yvesdolc/archive/2009/01/07/windows-7-libraries-and-the-common-file-dialog.aspxIs there something significant I'm missing here, or are you just blowing smoke?
The file dialog in W7 is not only almost identical to what KDE has had since early 2002 (no, I'm not claiming they 'stole' anything), but it's also a dialog lacking the vast majority of the function that KDE has in its dialog.
(Now, GTK2/GNOME, on the other hand, is a bit of an ugly kludge akin to the newer OSX Finder interface, but that is largely an argument of preference, I think.
)You want to talk about a crappy interface, let's take a look at the paragraph-of-irritation style "file copy" dialog in W7:http://www.sevenforums.com/attachments/general-discussion/4566d1234384335-copy-replace-dialog-there-way-get-old-one-like-xp-screen2.pngExplain to me why I need 1"^2 icons, with sublimated text and the important bits shoved off into a corner or otherwise de-emphasized?
It's almost as if they want you to just click "yes" and ignore what it says.
How useless (and irritating).
KDE4 isn't much better, but at least its evident where the better implementation came from (first):http://imagebin.ca/img/8GQHAD.pngIn closing, bitching about the file dialog (presumably in GNOME) as a reason why "linux" is not a modern operating system is comical, especially when the 'major look' as well as many of the nice-to-have features of W7 are (by the opinions of many MS and Linux fans alike) a near-copy of KDE 4 functionality/features/look/feel.
And when you consider that it was only a couple years ago when MS got an actual security model on their desktop OS (which still doesn't really work properly).
That seems like a pretty obvious requirement for a "modern operating system" to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670173</id>
	<title>Re:What The Fuck?</title>
	<author>dzfoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247395860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take a look at Mac OS X.  The Finder allows you to add comments to file properties.  These are then indexed by the underlying search engine (Spotlight).  You can use these to add "tags" or "keywords" or whatever you want, and then search for them with those.  You can even save your searches as "virtual folders" (they call it a "saved search" or something like that).</p><p>These folders are completely dynamic and updated in real-time, so adding or changing tags will cause the folders to update immediately.</p><p>But if you trully hate all manners of folders, then just don't save your searches; just search for everything whenever you want by using the handy-dandy Spotlight interface.</p><p>I personally like folders; I like things in order, and for it to be predictable and static.  Perhaps I'm getting old, but that's me.  However, I still find the "saved searches" convenient for many things.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at Mac OS X. The Finder allows you to add comments to file properties .
These are then indexed by the underlying search engine ( Spotlight ) .
You can use these to add " tags " or " keywords " or whatever you want , and then search for them with those .
You can even save your searches as " virtual folders " ( they call it a " saved search " or something like that ) .These folders are completely dynamic and updated in real-time , so adding or changing tags will cause the folders to update immediately.But if you trully hate all manners of folders , then just do n't save your searches ; just search for everything whenever you want by using the handy-dandy Spotlight interface.I personally like folders ; I like things in order , and for it to be predictable and static .
Perhaps I 'm getting old , but that 's me .
However , I still find the " saved searches " convenient for many things .
        -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at Mac OS X.  The Finder allows you to add comments to file properties.
These are then indexed by the underlying search engine (Spotlight).
You can use these to add "tags" or "keywords" or whatever you want, and then search for them with those.
You can even save your searches as "virtual folders" (they call it a "saved search" or something like that).These folders are completely dynamic and updated in real-time, so adding or changing tags will cause the folders to update immediately.But if you trully hate all manners of folders, then just don't save your searches; just search for everything whenever you want by using the handy-dandy Spotlight interface.I personally like folders; I like things in order, and for it to be predictable and static.
Perhaps I'm getting old, but that's me.
However, I still find the "saved searches" convenient for many things.
        -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672423</id>
	<title>Re:Agreed - Too Much of a Paradigm Shift</title>
	<author>johnwroach</author>
	<datestamp>1247418000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Create a filter, apply a label, check "Skip inbox". Voila! Folders.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Create a filter , apply a label , check " Skip inbox " .
Voila ! Folders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Create a filter, apply a label, check "Skip inbox".
Voila! Folders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28674359</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247488200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot more issues than just getting used to a new set of tools.

I recently set up a new small startup company.  We have 4 staff, but 3 of us work a lot from home, coming into the office only once or twice a week.  As an experiment I set us all up on Google Apps Premium.  The email is great - no complaints.  Gmail has always been my webmail of choice, and with POP/IMAP support my 2 Mac guys can use mail.app to their hearts content.

Calendar is so-so.  Sharing calendars, particularly more than one seems a bit erratic, but it's just about good enough for us to use (we really need shared calendars do the the business we operate).

Docs is the main weakness.  The office suite just doesn't have the feature set of any of the offline suites.  Offline support is lacking.  It frustrates me that Google make a huge thing of this being a set of "collaboration" tools and yet leave out (or don't implement) a really simple and obvious feature like folder-level sharing.  If you want to share a folder containing sub-folders with other people in your group, you have to meticulously go through the directory structure and share all the bloody files in each sub-folder individually.  Why the hell can't I just share the top folder and have it apply sharing to the rest of the tree?
  What worries me more, is that when you go into the requested features forum, you can see that people have been asking for this for a long time now and it's not happened.  Which makes me think that Google simply aren't putting a lot of resource into developing it.  I don't like entrusting the future of my business into something that they might just drop like a stone if they feel like it.  And without more feedback from the devs, and noticeable improvements over time, it certainly feels like they could.

The docs file manager tool itself seems completely brain-damaged at times.  You can drag a file from one folder to another, and it disappears.  The folder displays (2 items) but only 1 is visible.  Where the **** did it go, and why should I have to kill my browser window and re-launch to see it?  I could go on, but I think a couple of examples are enough to suggest that there are what I would suggest are basic areas of functionality that simply aren't ready for prime-time yet.

Eventually we gave up and went back to an offline office suite.  Google Apps is a nice idea, and I'm sure that when it's anywhere near fully functional it'll be a very handy for us.  But right now it's not even close.

I apologize for the rather disorganized rant.  If I'd had more time I'd have written a more organized critique, but given that I was on my way to bed, I banged out this comment in a quick 5 minute brain splurge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot more issues than just getting used to a new set of tools .
I recently set up a new small startup company .
We have 4 staff , but 3 of us work a lot from home , coming into the office only once or twice a week .
As an experiment I set us all up on Google Apps Premium .
The email is great - no complaints .
Gmail has always been my webmail of choice , and with POP/IMAP support my 2 Mac guys can use mail.app to their hearts content .
Calendar is so-so .
Sharing calendars , particularly more than one seems a bit erratic , but it 's just about good enough for us to use ( we really need shared calendars do the the business we operate ) .
Docs is the main weakness .
The office suite just does n't have the feature set of any of the offline suites .
Offline support is lacking .
It frustrates me that Google make a huge thing of this being a set of " collaboration " tools and yet leave out ( or do n't implement ) a really simple and obvious feature like folder-level sharing .
If you want to share a folder containing sub-folders with other people in your group , you have to meticulously go through the directory structure and share all the bloody files in each sub-folder individually .
Why the hell ca n't I just share the top folder and have it apply sharing to the rest of the tree ?
What worries me more , is that when you go into the requested features forum , you can see that people have been asking for this for a long time now and it 's not happened .
Which makes me think that Google simply are n't putting a lot of resource into developing it .
I do n't like entrusting the future of my business into something that they might just drop like a stone if they feel like it .
And without more feedback from the devs , and noticeable improvements over time , it certainly feels like they could .
The docs file manager tool itself seems completely brain-damaged at times .
You can drag a file from one folder to another , and it disappears .
The folder displays ( 2 items ) but only 1 is visible .
Where the * * * * did it go , and why should I have to kill my browser window and re-launch to see it ?
I could go on , but I think a couple of examples are enough to suggest that there are what I would suggest are basic areas of functionality that simply are n't ready for prime-time yet .
Eventually we gave up and went back to an offline office suite .
Google Apps is a nice idea , and I 'm sure that when it 's anywhere near fully functional it 'll be a very handy for us .
But right now it 's not even close .
I apologize for the rather disorganized rant .
If I 'd had more time I 'd have written a more organized critique , but given that I was on my way to bed , I banged out this comment in a quick 5 minute brain splurge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot more issues than just getting used to a new set of tools.
I recently set up a new small startup company.
We have 4 staff, but 3 of us work a lot from home, coming into the office only once or twice a week.
As an experiment I set us all up on Google Apps Premium.
The email is great - no complaints.
Gmail has always been my webmail of choice, and with POP/IMAP support my 2 Mac guys can use mail.app to their hearts content.
Calendar is so-so.
Sharing calendars, particularly more than one seems a bit erratic, but it's just about good enough for us to use (we really need shared calendars do the the business we operate).
Docs is the main weakness.
The office suite just doesn't have the feature set of any of the offline suites.
Offline support is lacking.
It frustrates me that Google make a huge thing of this being a set of "collaboration" tools and yet leave out (or don't implement) a really simple and obvious feature like folder-level sharing.
If you want to share a folder containing sub-folders with other people in your group, you have to meticulously go through the directory structure and share all the bloody files in each sub-folder individually.
Why the hell can't I just share the top folder and have it apply sharing to the rest of the tree?
What worries me more, is that when you go into the requested features forum, you can see that people have been asking for this for a long time now and it's not happened.
Which makes me think that Google simply aren't putting a lot of resource into developing it.
I don't like entrusting the future of my business into something that they might just drop like a stone if they feel like it.
And without more feedback from the devs, and noticeable improvements over time, it certainly feels like they could.
The docs file manager tool itself seems completely brain-damaged at times.
You can drag a file from one folder to another, and it disappears.
The folder displays (2 items) but only 1 is visible.
Where the **** did it go, and why should I have to kill my browser window and re-launch to see it?
I could go on, but I think a couple of examples are enough to suggest that there are what I would suggest are basic areas of functionality that simply aren't ready for prime-time yet.
Eventually we gave up and went back to an offline office suite.
Google Apps is a nice idea, and I'm sure that when it's anywhere near fully functional it'll be a very handy for us.
But right now it's not even close.
I apologize for the rather disorganized rant.
If I'd had more time I'd have written a more organized critique, but given that I was on my way to bed, I banged out this comment in a quick 5 minute brain splurge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668993</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1247429640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect a lot of people who complain that Windows isn't a real operating system haven't really used it that much in the past eight years or so, so they're simply unaware that it isn't the steaming pile of crap that Win98 used to be.  After all, people defended Win98 back then, the same way they're defending XP now, so how would an outsider know that it's actually completely different?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect a lot of people who complain that Windows is n't a real operating system have n't really used it that much in the past eight years or so , so they 're simply unaware that it is n't the steaming pile of crap that Win98 used to be .
After all , people defended Win98 back then , the same way they 're defending XP now , so how would an outsider know that it 's actually completely different ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect a lot of people who complain that Windows isn't a real operating system haven't really used it that much in the past eight years or so, so they're simply unaware that it isn't the steaming pile of crap that Win98 used to be.
After all, people defended Win98 back then, the same way they're defending XP now, so how would an outsider know that it's actually completely different?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>capnkr</author>
	<datestamp>1247414640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>{snip}...you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly. Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.</p></div><p>And that bit there pretty much explains the whole Windows hegemony...

Within the last 24 hours, on another non-tech forum, there's a guy who's been getting griefed by a WinXP install. After others suggested Linux, he responded with the (all-too common) <i>"...But I can't run my business-related Win apps on it"</i>. Of course, and only after I pointed out to him that he could easily do so via virtualization, he comes clean with the real reason - that it is by his choice he continues to use Windows, which in his own words he refers to as 'the devil he knows'. He has been having these issues for over 2 months now, attempting to get this box running - and this from a guy who coded DB apps for Win98.

People are very resistant to change. Most of 'em, it seems, they'd rather suffer.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>{ snip } ...you do n't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly .
Then it really does n't matter much what comes later , you 're in the money.And that bit there pretty much explains the whole Windows hegemony.. . Within the last 24 hours , on another non-tech forum , there 's a guy who 's been getting griefed by a WinXP install .
After others suggested Linux , he responded with the ( all-too common ) " ...But I ca n't run my business-related Win apps on it " .
Of course , and only after I pointed out to him that he could easily do so via virtualization , he comes clean with the real reason - that it is by his choice he continues to use Windows , which in his own words he refers to as 'the devil he knows' .
He has been having these issues for over 2 months now , attempting to get this box running - and this from a guy who coded DB apps for Win98 .
People are very resistant to change .
Most of 'em , it seems , they 'd rather suffer .
: /</tokentext>
<sentencetext>{snip}...you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly.
Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.And that bit there pretty much explains the whole Windows hegemony...

Within the last 24 hours, on another non-tech forum, there's a guy who's been getting griefed by a WinXP install.
After others suggested Linux, he responded with the (all-too common) "...But I can't run my business-related Win apps on it".
Of course, and only after I pointed out to him that he could easily do so via virtualization, he comes clean with the real reason - that it is by his choice he continues to use Windows, which in his own words he refers to as 'the devil he knows'.
He has been having these issues for over 2 months now, attempting to get this box running - and this from a guy who coded DB apps for Win98.
People are very resistant to change.
Most of 'em, it seems, they'd rather suffer.
:/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670715</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1247400960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was a very old comment made by Bill Gates when Microsoft was on the rise.  "If we don't obsolete our own products, someone else will."  Say what you will, that's a winning marketing philosophy today.  It may not be to everyone's benefit (and in fact often mightily sucks, if you want a stable environment) but it's a good one for the shareholders if they can get away with it.  Embedded systems? No. Consumer electronics? Shouldn't have to ask.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was a very old comment made by Bill Gates when Microsoft was on the rise .
" If we do n't obsolete our own products , someone else will .
" Say what you will , that 's a winning marketing philosophy today .
It may not be to everyone 's benefit ( and in fact often mightily sucks , if you want a stable environment ) but it 's a good one for the shareholders if they can get away with it .
Embedded systems ?
No. Consumer electronics ?
Should n't have to ask .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was a very old comment made by Bill Gates when Microsoft was on the rise.
"If we don't obsolete our own products, someone else will.
"  Say what you will, that's a winning marketing philosophy today.
It may not be to everyone's benefit (and in fact often mightily sucks, if you want a stable environment) but it's a good one for the shareholders if they can get away with it.
Embedded systems?
No. Consumer electronics?
Shouldn't have to ask.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669885</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1247393760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being "standardized" is both a good and a bad thing... One size does not fit all, and a monoculture is no good for anyone... The ability to select the best tool for the job rather than having to use a "standard" is a good thing. Data should be standardized, but how you interact with it should be a matter of choice... Roads are standard, tv signals are standard, but people drive all kinds of different vehicles and use different types of tv.<br>But to answer your question:</p><p>Windows makes a terrible server platform, you can't strip it down to the bare minimum, you can't install and manage it from a serial console... and don't mention the "cli only mode" in windows 2008, their idea of cli only is to load the entire gui layer and then put a cmd.exe window in the middle of it... what was the point in loading the gui layer with all it's overhead just to display a cli? a windowed cli will never work over a serial console either...</p><p>On a desktop system the interface is extremely clunky, and is very much geared towards doing things their way or nothing... Their way doesn't suit me, the default ways of most linux distros don't suit me either but linux is much easier to customize.</p><p>Linux is easy to use without a command line, modern distros will let you do everything most users will ever want without a command line... And yet, many seasoned users actively choose to use the command line on linux.. Why? because in many cases it's easier, much easier for an experienced user, and much easier to explain when trying to help an unskilled user. Windows users, even experienced ones rarely use the command line mostly because the windows cli is pretty bad, but one counter example is when someone doing phone support wants an ip address from a windows user they're supporting, they almost always have them open a command prompt and type "ipconfig"... Why? because that's easier than finding the IP through the gui (which i assume can be done somehow).<br>Because of this people get the impression linux is only usable from the cli, when in reality the cli is often the best but not the only way to do many things...</p><p>And when it comes to advanced things, a cli where you can cut+paste is much easier than regedit...</p><p>Another issue is package management, windows simply doesn't have one, on linux i can just open my package manager, search for what i want and hit install, and what i want is installed including any dependencies it has, or i can do it from the cli. Windows requires you to manually find what you want through google, trust that the download site you find is reputable (when was the last time a windows user downloaded a file from a random download site and then compared the checksums with a set published by an official site?), and then wait for the download to finish before you can manually execute and follow through with the installer. That is just a HUGE pain in the ass.</p><p>Multiple workspaces - i cant live without multiple workspaces, and all the windows implementations i've seen have sucked, mostly because no apps or even the basic window manager are designed with workspaces in mind. And yes, aside from workspaces i can't stand the way the windows window manager works, i find it clunky and inflexible.</p><p>Foreign filesystems - linux comes with support for all kinds of filesystems out of the box, windows just doesn't, and what third party filesystem drivers do exist are often poorly implemented, buggy or both... I have to read disks from macs, bsd and linux boxes all the time and occasionally misc other systems, windows just doesn't cut it, they arrogantly only support their own filesystems.</p><p>Source - I want the ability to modify the source code of the programs i use, to do things the authors never intended... I also want to be able to use new and exciting hardware, many years ago i used alpha, more recently i was using 64bit amd64 very early on and these days i would be looking at low power arm based systems, microsoft have always been playing catch up and the closed source nature of most windows apps make</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being " standardized " is both a good and a bad thing... One size does not fit all , and a monoculture is no good for anyone... The ability to select the best tool for the job rather than having to use a " standard " is a good thing .
Data should be standardized , but how you interact with it should be a matter of choice... Roads are standard , tv signals are standard , but people drive all kinds of different vehicles and use different types of tv.But to answer your question : Windows makes a terrible server platform , you ca n't strip it down to the bare minimum , you ca n't install and manage it from a serial console... and do n't mention the " cli only mode " in windows 2008 , their idea of cli only is to load the entire gui layer and then put a cmd.exe window in the middle of it... what was the point in loading the gui layer with all it 's overhead just to display a cli ?
a windowed cli will never work over a serial console either...On a desktop system the interface is extremely clunky , and is very much geared towards doing things their way or nothing... Their way does n't suit me , the default ways of most linux distros do n't suit me either but linux is much easier to customize.Linux is easy to use without a command line , modern distros will let you do everything most users will ever want without a command line... And yet , many seasoned users actively choose to use the command line on linux.. Why ? because in many cases it 's easier , much easier for an experienced user , and much easier to explain when trying to help an unskilled user .
Windows users , even experienced ones rarely use the command line mostly because the windows cli is pretty bad , but one counter example is when someone doing phone support wants an ip address from a windows user they 're supporting , they almost always have them open a command prompt and type " ipconfig " ... Why ? because that 's easier than finding the IP through the gui ( which i assume can be done somehow ) .Because of this people get the impression linux is only usable from the cli , when in reality the cli is often the best but not the only way to do many things...And when it comes to advanced things , a cli where you can cut + paste is much easier than regedit...Another issue is package management , windows simply does n't have one , on linux i can just open my package manager , search for what i want and hit install , and what i want is installed including any dependencies it has , or i can do it from the cli .
Windows requires you to manually find what you want through google , trust that the download site you find is reputable ( when was the last time a windows user downloaded a file from a random download site and then compared the checksums with a set published by an official site ?
) , and then wait for the download to finish before you can manually execute and follow through with the installer .
That is just a HUGE pain in the ass.Multiple workspaces - i cant live without multiple workspaces , and all the windows implementations i 've seen have sucked , mostly because no apps or even the basic window manager are designed with workspaces in mind .
And yes , aside from workspaces i ca n't stand the way the windows window manager works , i find it clunky and inflexible.Foreign filesystems - linux comes with support for all kinds of filesystems out of the box , windows just does n't , and what third party filesystem drivers do exist are often poorly implemented , buggy or both... I have to read disks from macs , bsd and linux boxes all the time and occasionally misc other systems , windows just does n't cut it , they arrogantly only support their own filesystems.Source - I want the ability to modify the source code of the programs i use , to do things the authors never intended... I also want to be able to use new and exciting hardware , many years ago i used alpha , more recently i was using 64bit amd64 very early on and these days i would be looking at low power arm based systems , microsoft have always been playing catch up and the closed source nature of most windows apps make</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being "standardized" is both a good and a bad thing... One size does not fit all, and a monoculture is no good for anyone... The ability to select the best tool for the job rather than having to use a "standard" is a good thing.
Data should be standardized, but how you interact with it should be a matter of choice... Roads are standard, tv signals are standard, but people drive all kinds of different vehicles and use different types of tv.But to answer your question:Windows makes a terrible server platform, you can't strip it down to the bare minimum, you can't install and manage it from a serial console... and don't mention the "cli only mode" in windows 2008, their idea of cli only is to load the entire gui layer and then put a cmd.exe window in the middle of it... what was the point in loading the gui layer with all it's overhead just to display a cli?
a windowed cli will never work over a serial console either...On a desktop system the interface is extremely clunky, and is very much geared towards doing things their way or nothing... Their way doesn't suit me, the default ways of most linux distros don't suit me either but linux is much easier to customize.Linux is easy to use without a command line, modern distros will let you do everything most users will ever want without a command line... And yet, many seasoned users actively choose to use the command line on linux.. Why? because in many cases it's easier, much easier for an experienced user, and much easier to explain when trying to help an unskilled user.
Windows users, even experienced ones rarely use the command line mostly because the windows cli is pretty bad, but one counter example is when someone doing phone support wants an ip address from a windows user they're supporting, they almost always have them open a command prompt and type "ipconfig"... Why? because that's easier than finding the IP through the gui (which i assume can be done somehow).Because of this people get the impression linux is only usable from the cli, when in reality the cli is often the best but not the only way to do many things...And when it comes to advanced things, a cli where you can cut+paste is much easier than regedit...Another issue is package management, windows simply doesn't have one, on linux i can just open my package manager, search for what i want and hit install, and what i want is installed including any dependencies it has, or i can do it from the cli.
Windows requires you to manually find what you want through google, trust that the download site you find is reputable (when was the last time a windows user downloaded a file from a random download site and then compared the checksums with a set published by an official site?
), and then wait for the download to finish before you can manually execute and follow through with the installer.
That is just a HUGE pain in the ass.Multiple workspaces - i cant live without multiple workspaces, and all the windows implementations i've seen have sucked, mostly because no apps or even the basic window manager are designed with workspaces in mind.
And yes, aside from workspaces i can't stand the way the windows window manager works, i find it clunky and inflexible.Foreign filesystems - linux comes with support for all kinds of filesystems out of the box, windows just doesn't, and what third party filesystem drivers do exist are often poorly implemented, buggy or both... I have to read disks from macs, bsd and linux boxes all the time and occasionally misc other systems, windows just doesn't cut it, they arrogantly only support their own filesystems.Source - I want the ability to modify the source code of the programs i use, to do things the authors never intended... I also want to be able to use new and exciting hardware, many years ago i used alpha, more recently i was using 64bit amd64 very early on and these days i would be looking at low power arm based systems, microsoft have always been playing catch up and the closed source nature of most windows apps make</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667789</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247418240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Primarily, shared contacts (without Exchange Server) is the holy grail of small businesses. This is the truth. The first company to market an alternative to this functionality (FOSS would be sooo cool) will make a fortune.</p><p>In my consulting experience, small businesses (15 staff) would kill for that, but can barely afford an extra server, let alone all the costs that come with Exchange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Primarily , shared contacts ( without Exchange Server ) is the holy grail of small businesses .
This is the truth .
The first company to market an alternative to this functionality ( FOSS would be sooo cool ) will make a fortune.In my consulting experience , small businesses ( 15 staff ) would kill for that , but can barely afford an extra server , let alone all the costs that come with Exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Primarily, shared contacts (without Exchange Server) is the holy grail of small businesses.
This is the truth.
The first company to market an alternative to this functionality (FOSS would be sooo cool) will make a fortune.In my consulting experience, small businesses (15 staff) would kill for that, but can barely afford an extra server, let alone all the costs that come with Exchange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668107</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247421060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unequivocally proving that having a low Slashdot ID does NOT make one immune to spreading FUD.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.</p></div><p>Really? Ever actually used the products in a REAL environment? (i.e. by people who \_know\_ the product, not people who are \_trying out\_ the product?)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unequivocally proving that having a low Slashdot ID does NOT make one immune to spreading FUD.Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.Really ?
Ever actually used the products in a REAL environment ?
( i.e. by people who \ _know \ _ the product , not people who are \ _trying out \ _ the product ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unequivocally proving that having a low Slashdot ID does NOT make one immune to spreading FUD.Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.Really?
Ever actually used the products in a REAL environment?
(i.e. by people who \_know\_ the product, not people who are \_trying out\_ the product?
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669641</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Mista2</author>
	<datestamp>1247392080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sharepoint does nothing that other web based collaboration systems haven't done for the last 10 years, but unlike most of those others it has good basic functionality out of the box and doesn't require much tweaking, however, you better have MS Office installed for most of the collaboration to work seamlessly. 8) There is the tie in again keeping the Windows OS on desks</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sharepoint does nothing that other web based collaboration systems have n't done for the last 10 years , but unlike most of those others it has good basic functionality out of the box and does n't require much tweaking , however , you better have MS Office installed for most of the collaboration to work seamlessly .
8 ) There is the tie in again keeping the Windows OS on desks</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sharepoint does nothing that other web based collaboration systems haven't done for the last 10 years, but unlike most of those others it has good basic functionality out of the box and doesn't require much tweaking, however, you better have MS Office installed for most of the collaboration to work seamlessly.
8) There is the tie in again keeping the Windows OS on desks</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667959</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247419920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.</i> </p><p>Sharepoint generated a billion in sales for Microsoft before the geek even knew it existed.</p><p>Calling Office and Outlook "steaming piles of shit" is usually worth three of four mod points on Slashdot - with a bonus point, maybe, for the "Outhouse" slur.</p><p> Worthy of Twitter, that one.</p><p>Doesn't make any of it true.</p><p> Even when it arrives tagged with a 942 ID.</p><p>The geek's natural habitat is the server room. He is not likely to be an office manager or - by choice - a clerical worker.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit .
Sharepoint generated a billion in sales for Microsoft before the geek even knew it existed.Calling Office and Outlook " steaming piles of shit " is usually worth three of four mod points on Slashdot - with a bonus point , maybe , for the " Outhouse " slur .
Worthy of Twitter , that one.Does n't make any of it true .
Even when it arrives tagged with a 942 ID.The geek 's natural habitat is the server room .
He is not likely to be an office manager or - by choice - a clerical worker .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.
Sharepoint generated a billion in sales for Microsoft before the geek even knew it existed.Calling Office and Outlook "steaming piles of shit" is usually worth three of four mod points on Slashdot - with a bonus point, maybe, for the "Outhouse" slur.
Worthy of Twitter, that one.Doesn't make any of it true.
Even when it arrives tagged with a 942 ID.The geek's natural habitat is the server room.
He is not likely to be an office manager or - by choice - a clerical worker.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668173</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>lseltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1247421600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact that these products are massive sellers proves that you don't get it. Unless you think that the corporate IT world is full of idiots and that only you see the truth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that these products are massive sellers proves that you do n't get it .
Unless you think that the corporate IT world is full of idiots and that only you see the truth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that these products are massive sellers proves that you don't get it.
Unless you think that the corporate IT world is full of idiots and that only you see the truth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672457</id>
	<title>Re:Too much in too little time</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1247418360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine, but still has stiff competition from Yahoo! Maps and MapQuest.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Google Map's main competition when it was launched was ESRI's ArcIMS/WMS servers (Internet Mapping Service/Web Mapping Service) as well as other IMS/WMS based on non ESRI products but most were based on ESRI products. Yahoo and MapQuest as well as MS's Virtual Earth offerings were responding to Google.<br> <br>

Where google differed is that it offered pre-prepared imagery to the public either free or at a decent cost (Google have had an interest in satellite imagery long before Google Maps was released, their participation in the GeoEye project for example) and provided a pre-made gateway for that service (all other solutions required you to build your own host). They also had the first decent public mapping gateway combined with a very well integrated an easy to use free public client.<br> <br>

ESRI responded to Google by combining the separate IMS and WMS products into a single product (ArcGIS Server).</p><blockquote><div><p>Taking the shotgun approach of seeing which spaghetti sticks to the wall,</p></div></blockquote><p>

What most people don't see unless they've worked in the GIS field is that Google has been involved in mapping and imagery for a while now. It's the same with their other offering. Android was not introduced overnight, same with Google Docs/apps. A great deal of behind the scenes work goes on with Google releases and normally a very long public beta to get rid of the bugs before the final product is released.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine , but still has stiff competition from Yahoo !
Maps and MapQuest .
Google Map 's main competition when it was launched was ESRI 's ArcIMS/WMS servers ( Internet Mapping Service/Web Mapping Service ) as well as other IMS/WMS based on non ESRI products but most were based on ESRI products .
Yahoo and MapQuest as well as MS 's Virtual Earth offerings were responding to Google .
Where google differed is that it offered pre-prepared imagery to the public either free or at a decent cost ( Google have had an interest in satellite imagery long before Google Maps was released , their participation in the GeoEye project for example ) and provided a pre-made gateway for that service ( all other solutions required you to build your own host ) .
They also had the first decent public mapping gateway combined with a very well integrated an easy to use free public client .
ESRI responded to Google by combining the separate IMS and WMS products into a single product ( ArcGIS Server ) .Taking the shotgun approach of seeing which spaghetti sticks to the wall , What most people do n't see unless they 've worked in the GIS field is that Google has been involved in mapping and imagery for a while now .
It 's the same with their other offering .
Android was not introduced overnight , same with Google Docs/apps .
A great deal of behind the scenes work goes on with Google releases and normally a very long public beta to get rid of the bugs before the final product is released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine, but still has stiff competition from Yahoo!
Maps and MapQuest.
Google Map's main competition when it was launched was ESRI's ArcIMS/WMS servers (Internet Mapping Service/Web Mapping Service) as well as other IMS/WMS based on non ESRI products but most were based on ESRI products.
Yahoo and MapQuest as well as MS's Virtual Earth offerings were responding to Google.
Where google differed is that it offered pre-prepared imagery to the public either free or at a decent cost (Google have had an interest in satellite imagery long before Google Maps was released, their participation in the GeoEye project for example) and provided a pre-made gateway for that service (all other solutions required you to build your own host).
They also had the first decent public mapping gateway combined with a very well integrated an easy to use free public client.
ESRI responded to Google by combining the separate IMS and WMS products into a single product (ArcGIS Server).Taking the shotgun approach of seeing which spaghetti sticks to the wall,

What most people don't see unless they've worked in the GIS field is that Google has been involved in mapping and imagery for a while now.
It's the same with their other offering.
Android was not introduced overnight, same with Google Docs/apps.
A great deal of behind the scenes work goes on with Google releases and normally a very long public beta to get rid of the bugs before the final product is released.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667263</id>
	<title>Re:Market it to Notes users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247413500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Oh come on now. Notes isn't all that bad. Sure it has it's issues. It's slow. It's bloated. It doesn't display things correctly. It's complex. It's slow. The scheduling interface leaves a lot to be desired. The address book is pretty clunky. It's slow. The client is a piece of crap. But really, it's not <em>that</em> bad...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on now .
Notes is n't all that bad .
Sure it has it 's issues .
It 's slow .
It 's bloated .
It does n't display things correctly .
It 's complex .
It 's slow .
The scheduling interface leaves a lot to be desired .
The address book is pretty clunky .
It 's slow .
The client is a piece of crap .
But really , it 's not that bad.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on now.
Notes isn't all that bad.
Sure it has it's issues.
It's slow.
It's bloated.
It doesn't display things correctly.
It's complex.
It's slow.
The scheduling interface leaves a lot to be desired.
The address book is pretty clunky.
It's slow.
The client is a piece of crap.
But really, it's not that bad...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667787</id>
	<title>Re:Not the *users* who are inertial</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247418240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, its the users.</p><p>Only idiots want to run Exchange, and they want to run exchange when the company is tiny, when running Exchange is easy and relatively hassle free.</p><p>Exchange is actually not so bad in a tiny company, it sucks ass when you are a large company.</p><p>However, users want integrated calendars, scheduling/free/busy notification, global contacts, personal contacts, shared contacts, global shared folders, user controllable shared folders, they want it on all their PCs and they want it available from the web when they've got a dead battery and only a Internet Cafe to check in from.  They want it to keep their blackberry in sync and they want it to coordinate the 150 other things that Outlook/Exchange do well on a small scale that allow Outlook users to, I know this is hard to believe, be productive.</p><p>Users love Outlook/Exchange.  The admins hate it with a passion, but thanks for showing us how little grasp you have on the IT world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , its the users.Only idiots want to run Exchange , and they want to run exchange when the company is tiny , when running Exchange is easy and relatively hassle free.Exchange is actually not so bad in a tiny company , it sucks ass when you are a large company.However , users want integrated calendars , scheduling/free/busy notification , global contacts , personal contacts , shared contacts , global shared folders , user controllable shared folders , they want it on all their PCs and they want it available from the web when they 've got a dead battery and only a Internet Cafe to check in from .
They want it to keep their blackberry in sync and they want it to coordinate the 150 other things that Outlook/Exchange do well on a small scale that allow Outlook users to , I know this is hard to believe , be productive.Users love Outlook/Exchange .
The admins hate it with a passion , but thanks for showing us how little grasp you have on the IT world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, its the users.Only idiots want to run Exchange, and they want to run exchange when the company is tiny, when running Exchange is easy and relatively hassle free.Exchange is actually not so bad in a tiny company, it sucks ass when you are a large company.However, users want integrated calendars, scheduling/free/busy notification, global contacts, personal contacts, shared contacts, global shared folders, user controllable shared folders, they want it on all their PCs and they want it available from the web when they've got a dead battery and only a Internet Cafe to check in from.
They want it to keep their blackberry in sync and they want it to coordinate the 150 other things that Outlook/Exchange do well on a small scale that allow Outlook users to, I know this is hard to believe, be productive.Users love Outlook/Exchange.
The admins hate it with a passion, but thanks for showing us how little grasp you have on the IT world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28674389</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft may just fix this themselves</title>
	<author>DougWebb</author>
	<datestamp>1247488680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook 2007 was the first place I saw the new Ribbon interface, and though it looked odd at first, I got used to it quickly. I think for Outlook it works really well. I'm still having trouble getting used to the Ribbon in Word and Excel though; while a few things are easier, I still find myself hunting for commands. I think those applications simply have complex command sets, and the Ribbon can't put everything in an easy-yo-find place any more than menus can. Effectively, all they've done is re-arrange the menus. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook 2007 was the first place I saw the new Ribbon interface , and though it looked odd at first , I got used to it quickly .
I think for Outlook it works really well .
I 'm still having trouble getting used to the Ribbon in Word and Excel though ; while a few things are easier , I still find myself hunting for commands .
I think those applications simply have complex command sets , and the Ribbon ca n't put everything in an easy-yo-find place any more than menus can .
Effectively , all they 've done is re-arrange the menus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook 2007 was the first place I saw the new Ribbon interface, and though it looked odd at first, I got used to it quickly.
I think for Outlook it works really well.
I'm still having trouble getting used to the Ribbon in Word and Excel though; while a few things are easier, I still find myself hunting for commands.
I think those applications simply have complex command sets, and the Ribbon can't put everything in an easy-yo-find place any more than menus can.
Effectively, all they've done is re-arrange the menus. </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667219</id>
	<title>Appliances are the way to go!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247413200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Time for Google to buy Zimbra http://www.zimbra.com/ Bundle it with some hw to make appliance like google search appliance. Then provide some local data storage for cache and expand backup/archive/recover over the net by their datacenters. Streamline deployment, management, scaleability and encrypt data stored in backend for security.</p><p>Wouldn't be too bad, really.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Time for Google to buy Zimbra http : //www.zimbra.com/ Bundle it with some hw to make appliance like google search appliance .
Then provide some local data storage for cache and expand backup/archive/recover over the net by their datacenters .
Streamline deployment , management , scaleability and encrypt data stored in backend for security.Would n't be too bad , really .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time for Google to buy Zimbra http://www.zimbra.com/ Bundle it with some hw to make appliance like google search appliance.
Then provide some local data storage for cache and expand backup/archive/recover over the net by their datacenters.
Streamline deployment, management, scaleability and encrypt data stored in backend for security.Wouldn't be too bad, really.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668263</id>
	<title>Re:Too much in too little time</title>
	<author>darkmeridian</author>
	<datestamp>1247422800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is attempting to position itself as the data kingpins of the next-generation. Right now, the average consumer is concerned about their privacy. They don't want to host their data on outside servers, etc. But kids nowadays have no such compunctions about posting their entire personal life onto Facebook or Myspace. You have teenagers who have spent their entire lives in the Internet age. They'll grow up with that attitude, then put all their business work onto third-party servers. Google wants to be that server. There is a network effect here so Google has to act fast to seize new ground. It doesn't make sense now, but it will in five years when everyone is running on Google's servers.</p><p>Google has taken Microsoft's MO of persistent beta testing. Google releases a product, it sucks, then Google fixes it, then adds more functionality. In a year or two, you have a good product. So Google is reaching all over to get its feet on the ground to start that process with as many products as possible. The end goal is to have a whole suite of interrelated data-related products that are good enough for 95\% of the users out there so no one else can break into the Google data hegemony.</p><p>Google wants to provide an entire suite so all of your information goes through Google, so no one else can break in and take your data. You have Gmail, with its fast interface and great spam blocking. That naturally extends to Google Calendar. If you want directions, you have Google Maps that takes info from Gmail and Google Calendar and gives it to you. All that info is fed into Google so it can toss up targeted ads for you. Now with Google Voice being deployed, you can seamlessly call contacts who mailed you, or a business close to the destination. Google Street View lets you see where your destination looks like. You can get an ad from Gmail, then buy the product using Google Checkout. When you're on vacation, you can take photos and upload it onto Picasa Web via Picasa. You can tag your friends and location so Google knows where you like to go and who you hang out with. Your info is already on Google. The more products Google has, the less likely you are to take any bit of your data elsewhere. I mean, Flickr is great, but Picasa works so well with Picasa Web! You can easily retouch a photo using "I'm Feeling Lucky" then sync it onto Picasa Web. You can e-mail photos to your friends via Gmail through Picasa. And it's all free! It becomes increasingly hard for a competitor to get into the data business.</p><p>I am a small business owner. I have to say that Google has been a godsend. I cannot afford to deploy my own Exchange servers, much less administer one. But with Google Apps, I can push e-mail from my domain on my Blackberry. Third party apps (and now Google new plugin) allow me to sync my Google contacts and calendar onto Outlook and my Blackberry, which I can backup in case Google eats all my data. Google Voice lets me use only one phone number, so I can be selectively available everywhere I want to be available with clients being none the wiser. As the features become more complete, I can see Google penetrating deeper into mid-sized and large-sized businesses. Google has to maintain uptime and reliability, which is a very difficult task. Perhaps that's why they are building so many geographically-separate servers. But for a small business owner who would otherwise would have to do without Blackberry push mail on my domain, or without calendar and contacts syncing, I'm very happy with Google's software suite right now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is attempting to position itself as the data kingpins of the next-generation .
Right now , the average consumer is concerned about their privacy .
They do n't want to host their data on outside servers , etc .
But kids nowadays have no such compunctions about posting their entire personal life onto Facebook or Myspace .
You have teenagers who have spent their entire lives in the Internet age .
They 'll grow up with that attitude , then put all their business work onto third-party servers .
Google wants to be that server .
There is a network effect here so Google has to act fast to seize new ground .
It does n't make sense now , but it will in five years when everyone is running on Google 's servers.Google has taken Microsoft 's MO of persistent beta testing .
Google releases a product , it sucks , then Google fixes it , then adds more functionality .
In a year or two , you have a good product .
So Google is reaching all over to get its feet on the ground to start that process with as many products as possible .
The end goal is to have a whole suite of interrelated data-related products that are good enough for 95 \ % of the users out there so no one else can break into the Google data hegemony.Google wants to provide an entire suite so all of your information goes through Google , so no one else can break in and take your data .
You have Gmail , with its fast interface and great spam blocking .
That naturally extends to Google Calendar .
If you want directions , you have Google Maps that takes info from Gmail and Google Calendar and gives it to you .
All that info is fed into Google so it can toss up targeted ads for you .
Now with Google Voice being deployed , you can seamlessly call contacts who mailed you , or a business close to the destination .
Google Street View lets you see where your destination looks like .
You can get an ad from Gmail , then buy the product using Google Checkout .
When you 're on vacation , you can take photos and upload it onto Picasa Web via Picasa .
You can tag your friends and location so Google knows where you like to go and who you hang out with .
Your info is already on Google .
The more products Google has , the less likely you are to take any bit of your data elsewhere .
I mean , Flickr is great , but Picasa works so well with Picasa Web !
You can easily retouch a photo using " I 'm Feeling Lucky " then sync it onto Picasa Web .
You can e-mail photos to your friends via Gmail through Picasa .
And it 's all free !
It becomes increasingly hard for a competitor to get into the data business.I am a small business owner .
I have to say that Google has been a godsend .
I can not afford to deploy my own Exchange servers , much less administer one .
But with Google Apps , I can push e-mail from my domain on my Blackberry .
Third party apps ( and now Google new plugin ) allow me to sync my Google contacts and calendar onto Outlook and my Blackberry , which I can backup in case Google eats all my data .
Google Voice lets me use only one phone number , so I can be selectively available everywhere I want to be available with clients being none the wiser .
As the features become more complete , I can see Google penetrating deeper into mid-sized and large-sized businesses .
Google has to maintain uptime and reliability , which is a very difficult task .
Perhaps that 's why they are building so many geographically-separate servers .
But for a small business owner who would otherwise would have to do without Blackberry push mail on my domain , or without calendar and contacts syncing , I 'm very happy with Google 's software suite right now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is attempting to position itself as the data kingpins of the next-generation.
Right now, the average consumer is concerned about their privacy.
They don't want to host their data on outside servers, etc.
But kids nowadays have no such compunctions about posting their entire personal life onto Facebook or Myspace.
You have teenagers who have spent their entire lives in the Internet age.
They'll grow up with that attitude, then put all their business work onto third-party servers.
Google wants to be that server.
There is a network effect here so Google has to act fast to seize new ground.
It doesn't make sense now, but it will in five years when everyone is running on Google's servers.Google has taken Microsoft's MO of persistent beta testing.
Google releases a product, it sucks, then Google fixes it, then adds more functionality.
In a year or two, you have a good product.
So Google is reaching all over to get its feet on the ground to start that process with as many products as possible.
The end goal is to have a whole suite of interrelated data-related products that are good enough for 95\% of the users out there so no one else can break into the Google data hegemony.Google wants to provide an entire suite so all of your information goes through Google, so no one else can break in and take your data.
You have Gmail, with its fast interface and great spam blocking.
That naturally extends to Google Calendar.
If you want directions, you have Google Maps that takes info from Gmail and Google Calendar and gives it to you.
All that info is fed into Google so it can toss up targeted ads for you.
Now with Google Voice being deployed, you can seamlessly call contacts who mailed you, or a business close to the destination.
Google Street View lets you see where your destination looks like.
You can get an ad from Gmail, then buy the product using Google Checkout.
When you're on vacation, you can take photos and upload it onto Picasa Web via Picasa.
You can tag your friends and location so Google knows where you like to go and who you hang out with.
Your info is already on Google.
The more products Google has, the less likely you are to take any bit of your data elsewhere.
I mean, Flickr is great, but Picasa works so well with Picasa Web!
You can easily retouch a photo using "I'm Feeling Lucky" then sync it onto Picasa Web.
You can e-mail photos to your friends via Gmail through Picasa.
And it's all free!
It becomes increasingly hard for a competitor to get into the data business.I am a small business owner.
I have to say that Google has been a godsend.
I cannot afford to deploy my own Exchange servers, much less administer one.
But with Google Apps, I can push e-mail from my domain on my Blackberry.
Third party apps (and now Google new plugin) allow me to sync my Google contacts and calendar onto Outlook and my Blackberry, which I can backup in case Google eats all my data.
Google Voice lets me use only one phone number, so I can be selectively available everywhere I want to be available with clients being none the wiser.
As the features become more complete, I can see Google penetrating deeper into mid-sized and large-sized businesses.
Google has to maintain uptime and reliability, which is a very difficult task.
Perhaps that's why they are building so many geographically-separate servers.
But for a small business owner who would otherwise would have to do without Blackberry push mail on my domain, or without calendar and contacts syncing, I'm very happy with Google's software suite right now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667633</id>
	<title>There's an App for That</title>
	<author>alexburke</author>
	<datestamp>1247417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right <a href="http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook\_sync.html" title="google.com">here</a> [google.com].</p><p>Quoting the Google:</p><blockquote><div><p>Now businesses can run Microsoft Outlook on Google Apps instead of Microsoft Exchange, so they can achieve the cost savings, security and reliability of Google Apps while employees use the interface they prefer for email, contacts and calendar.</p></div></blockquote><p>Oh, and it works with all editions of Google Apps, both free and paid, and it costs $0 extra.</p><p>You're welcome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Right here [ google.com ] .Quoting the Google : Now businesses can run Microsoft Outlook on Google Apps instead of Microsoft Exchange , so they can achieve the cost savings , security and reliability of Google Apps while employees use the interface they prefer for email , contacts and calendar.Oh , and it works with all editions of Google Apps , both free and paid , and it costs $ 0 extra.You 're welcome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right here [google.com].Quoting the Google:Now businesses can run Microsoft Outlook on Google Apps instead of Microsoft Exchange, so they can achieve the cost savings, security and reliability of Google Apps while employees use the interface they prefer for email, contacts and calendar.Oh, and it works with all editions of Google Apps, both free and paid, and it costs $0 extra.You're welcome.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667887</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247419140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be using a definition of "drastically" with which I am unfamiliar.  I'll give you Office 2007; the Ribbon is a fairly substantial departure from the traditional menus of previous versions.  But the changes from XP to Vista/7 are mostly inconsequential.  Aside from UAC (which is more of a development issue than an end user issue), the only noticeable changes were in the main UI elements (Start Menu, Task Bar, Control Panel).  All the same functionality is still there; it's just been shuffled around a bit.  I don't think any reasonable person would call that "drastic".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be using a definition of " drastically " with which I am unfamiliar .
I 'll give you Office 2007 ; the Ribbon is a fairly substantial departure from the traditional menus of previous versions .
But the changes from XP to Vista/7 are mostly inconsequential .
Aside from UAC ( which is more of a development issue than an end user issue ) , the only noticeable changes were in the main UI elements ( Start Menu , Task Bar , Control Panel ) .
All the same functionality is still there ; it 's just been shuffled around a bit .
I do n't think any reasonable person would call that " drastic " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be using a definition of "drastically" with which I am unfamiliar.
I'll give you Office 2007; the Ribbon is a fairly substantial departure from the traditional menus of previous versions.
But the changes from XP to Vista/7 are mostly inconsequential.
Aside from UAC (which is more of a development issue than an end user issue), the only noticeable changes were in the main UI elements (Start Menu, Task Bar, Control Panel).
All the same functionality is still there; it's just been shuffled around a bit.
I don't think any reasonable person would call that "drastic".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667873</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247418960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to say this in defense of MS but...</p><p><b>Having a superior product isn't 'Lock-In'.</b></p><p>Lock-in is when you have a bunch of data and prevent people from taking it to some thing different.</p><p>You can't call it lock-in when you basically say 'I like product A better than product B because product A has (insert feature list) and product B doesn't, or product B is a loosely connected amalgamation of simple tools trying to pretend to be A.</p><p>The only thing GMail has over Outlook/Exchange is reliability.  So far, GMail appears more reliable than an Exchange server generally is, however thats probably because GMail just has far more servers to throw at it.  Long term, GMail isn't even really cheaper than Outlook/Exchange unless you're doing the freebe apps for your domain or standard gmail, in which case you've just basically given up every single feature of Outlook/Exchange in order to go back to email the way it was in 1996, with a pretty web interface.</p><p>If Google wants to compete, they have to produce a superior product.  GMail and Apps for your Domain in their current forms aren't superior products.</p><p>There is no lock-in because there is no competing product with a comparable feature set, and its pretty easy to export your data from all the products you mentioned so that it can be moved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say this in defense of MS but...Having a superior product is n't 'Lock-In'.Lock-in is when you have a bunch of data and prevent people from taking it to some thing different.You ca n't call it lock-in when you basically say 'I like product A better than product B because product A has ( insert feature list ) and product B does n't , or product B is a loosely connected amalgamation of simple tools trying to pretend to be A.The only thing GMail has over Outlook/Exchange is reliability .
So far , GMail appears more reliable than an Exchange server generally is , however thats probably because GMail just has far more servers to throw at it .
Long term , GMail is n't even really cheaper than Outlook/Exchange unless you 're doing the freebe apps for your domain or standard gmail , in which case you 've just basically given up every single feature of Outlook/Exchange in order to go back to email the way it was in 1996 , with a pretty web interface.If Google wants to compete , they have to produce a superior product .
GMail and Apps for your Domain in their current forms are n't superior products.There is no lock-in because there is no competing product with a comparable feature set , and its pretty easy to export your data from all the products you mentioned so that it can be moved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say this in defense of MS but...Having a superior product isn't 'Lock-In'.Lock-in is when you have a bunch of data and prevent people from taking it to some thing different.You can't call it lock-in when you basically say 'I like product A better than product B because product A has (insert feature list) and product B doesn't, or product B is a loosely connected amalgamation of simple tools trying to pretend to be A.The only thing GMail has over Outlook/Exchange is reliability.
So far, GMail appears more reliable than an Exchange server generally is, however thats probably because GMail just has far more servers to throw at it.
Long term, GMail isn't even really cheaper than Outlook/Exchange unless you're doing the freebe apps for your domain or standard gmail, in which case you've just basically given up every single feature of Outlook/Exchange in order to go back to email the way it was in 1996, with a pretty web interface.If Google wants to compete, they have to produce a superior product.
GMail and Apps for your Domain in their current forms aren't superior products.There is no lock-in because there is no competing product with a comparable feature set, and its pretty easy to export your data from all the products you mentioned so that it can be moved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667953</id>
	<title>Re:Market it to Notes users</title>
	<author>JAlexoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247419860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen "enterprise solution" Exchange+Outlook suck mire than Notes. And the fact that Note, now, is an all in one collaboration solution has it's positive effects.<br>
I do use Notes 8 and see very little issues with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen " enterprise solution " Exchange + Outlook suck mire than Notes .
And the fact that Note , now , is an all in one collaboration solution has it 's positive effects .
I do use Notes 8 and see very little issues with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen "enterprise solution" Exchange+Outlook suck mire than Notes.
And the fact that Note, now, is an all in one collaboration solution has it's positive effects.
I do use Notes 8 and see very little issues with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667541</id>
	<title>I'd say:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247416320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Apps being featureless crap, even worse than Outlook, being pointless webapps instead of real apps, and not hosted on their own servers, is the main factor holding business from using them. ^^<br>There being no advantage over Outlook being the other one.</p><p>(And I hate Outlook just as much as IE, which I had to get webapps working on for five years. So I am really the furthest away from an Outlook fanboy. ^^)<br>(I also think Google deserves the success they have. But not the success that the shill who wrote TFA wishes them to have.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Apps being featureless crap , even worse than Outlook , being pointless webapps instead of real apps , and not hosted on their own servers , is the main factor holding business from using them .
^ ^ There being no advantage over Outlook being the other one .
( And I hate Outlook just as much as IE , which I had to get webapps working on for five years .
So I am really the furthest away from an Outlook fanboy .
^ ^ ) ( I also think Google deserves the success they have .
But not the success that the shill who wrote TFA wishes them to have .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Apps being featureless crap, even worse than Outlook, being pointless webapps instead of real apps, and not hosted on their own servers, is the main factor holding business from using them.
^^There being no advantage over Outlook being the other one.
(And I hate Outlook just as much as IE, which I had to get webapps working on for five years.
So I am really the furthest away from an Outlook fanboy.
^^)(I also think Google deserves the success they have.
But not the success that the shill who wrote TFA wishes them to have.
:)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28676649</id>
	<title>Re:Give me an alternative...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247501220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PST files? Since when does Outlook + Exchange use a PST file?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PST files ?
Since when does Outlook + Exchange use a PST file ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PST files?
Since when does Outlook + Exchange use a PST file?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28680963</id>
	<title>Corporal-Captain.  It's a new test rank.</title>
	<author>Impy the Impiuos Imp</author>
	<datestamp>1247515920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; There's an interesting article in PC World claiming that the major<br>&gt; factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication<br>&gt; interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees' unwillingness<br>&gt; to give up a tool that's so familiar.</p><p>I thought the major factor was, "Google Apps, wut?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There 's an interesting article in PC World claiming that the major &gt; factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication &gt; interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees ' unwillingness &gt; to give up a tool that 's so familiar.I thought the major factor was , " Google Apps , wut ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There's an interesting article in PC World claiming that the major&gt; factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication&gt; interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees' unwillingness&gt; to give up a tool that's so familiar.I thought the major factor was, "Google Apps, wut?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669065</id>
	<title>Re:Market it to Notes users</title>
	<author>tcr</author>
	<datestamp>1247430300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm... well, I'm not sure that people really use the Notes client that much anymore.<br>For klunky email, sure....  but for groupware, Domino web apps have been more popular for over a decade.<br>Around 1995, Apache was integrated into Notes to become Lotus Domino.<br>Compared to LAMP development :  The DHTML/CSS/Javascript stuff is the same.  LotusScript agents are used instead of PHP/Python/Perl modules.  The backend is a BTree derived non-relational DB.<br>
&nbsp; <br>In my experience, the biggest problem for that stuff was companies trying to use it for purposes where a relational DB would have been a really, really good idea.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Looking at the tech that's emerging, I would consider Google Wave to be the real Notes killer (which is probably why the Groovy Mr. Ozzie seemed to have a bug up his ass about it). Wave Robots extend the concept of Notes agents.<br>
&nbsp; <br>[Disclaimer : have been a consultant for IBM/Lotus]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm... well , I 'm not sure that people really use the Notes client that much anymore.For klunky email , sure.... but for groupware , Domino web apps have been more popular for over a decade.Around 1995 , Apache was integrated into Notes to become Lotus Domino.Compared to LAMP development : The DHTML/CSS/Javascript stuff is the same .
LotusScript agents are used instead of PHP/Python/Perl modules .
The backend is a BTree derived non-relational DB .
  In my experience , the biggest problem for that stuff was companies trying to use it for purposes where a relational DB would have been a really , really good idea .
  Looking at the tech that 's emerging , I would consider Google Wave to be the real Notes killer ( which is probably why the Groovy Mr. Ozzie seemed to have a bug up his ass about it ) .
Wave Robots extend the concept of Notes agents .
  [ Disclaimer : have been a consultant for IBM/Lotus ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm... well, I'm not sure that people really use the Notes client that much anymore.For klunky email, sure....  but for groupware, Domino web apps have been more popular for over a decade.Around 1995, Apache was integrated into Notes to become Lotus Domino.Compared to LAMP development :  The DHTML/CSS/Javascript stuff is the same.
LotusScript agents are used instead of PHP/Python/Perl modules.
The backend is a BTree derived non-relational DB.
  In my experience, the biggest problem for that stuff was companies trying to use it for purposes where a relational DB would have been a really, really good idea.
  Looking at the tech that's emerging, I would consider Google Wave to be the real Notes killer (which is probably why the Groovy Mr. Ozzie seemed to have a bug up his ass about it).
Wave Robots extend the concept of Notes agents.
  [Disclaimer : have been a consultant for IBM/Lotus]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667263</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487</id>
	<title>Proper operating systems...</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247415840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.</i></p><p>Linux's file dialogs are too obsolete to call it a modern operating system. Once Windows 7 goes mainstream, people will be addicted to the libraries feature in the Windows 7 dialogs like they are crack.  Then, not only will Linux have to come up with better file dialogs, which, they have a lot of work to do, they might also have to consider how they will migrate people's library settings from Windows to Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.Linux 's file dialogs are too obsolete to call it a modern operating system .
Once Windows 7 goes mainstream , people will be addicted to the libraries feature in the Windows 7 dialogs like they are crack .
Then , not only will Linux have to come up with better file dialogs , which , they have a lot of work to do , they might also have to consider how they will migrate people 's library settings from Windows to Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.Linux's file dialogs are too obsolete to call it a modern operating system.
Once Windows 7 goes mainstream, people will be addicted to the libraries feature in the Windows 7 dialogs like they are crack.
Then, not only will Linux have to come up with better file dialogs, which, they have a lot of work to do, they might also have to consider how they will migrate people's library settings from Windows to Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667723</id>
	<title>Re:Saw this first hand</title>
	<author>gonz</author>
	<datestamp>1247417700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Her: Outlook is so slow- the messages take forever to load!</p></div><p>Outlook was probably slow because you were loading against Google's IMAP server on the internet, rather than from an Exchange server in the same office.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Me: Well, you don't get that with a web-based system, because it is much more efficient at getting to your messages faster than your single hard drive</p></div><p>A web-based system is LESS efficient because nothing is cached locally.  I use Gmail for some accounts, and every time I jump to a new message ("conversation"), I have to wait several seconds while the page loads.  I periodically have cases where I get a blank white page because the internet connection timed out.  If the network goes offline for some reason, my e-mail is totally inaccessible.  Outlook (or in my case Thunderbird) has NONE of these problems because all the messages are right their on your laptop's hard disk.  You can read them and search them with no internet at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Her: Oh. Now, is there a way I can put the same message in multiple folders without making a duplcate?<br>Me: Actually, with Gmail you can use labels to assign one message to multiple labels, making organization much easier</p></div><p>In other words, NO, Gmail does not have simple folders.  It has a different system called labels.  If you want to use Gmail, you need to learn how to use labels, and accept the claim that labels are better than folders.</p><p>This claim might be true, but it's interesting that to this day, simple folders are still the model used by file systems.  When filing, you want things to have a single location in a nice hierarchical tree.  Searching is useful, but it's not the same as filing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google's biggest challenge is not a technical one- it's a marketing one. Google has to convince everyone that they have a product that really is better.</p></div><p>No, Google's challenge is to actually be better.  It's great for personal e-mail, but regular people rarely need to "manage" their personal e-mail, since it's mostly chatter that expires after 1 week.  By contrast, business e-mails are documents that need to be searched and sorted, with deadline pressure from the boss.</p><p>You've shown that this woman was unable to refute your spirited technical arguments.  But does that really mean she's clueless and incapable of deciding which product meets her needs?</p><p>-Gonz</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Her : Outlook is so slow- the messages take forever to load ! Outlook was probably slow because you were loading against Google 's IMAP server on the internet , rather than from an Exchange server in the same office .
: -PMe : Well , you do n't get that with a web-based system , because it is much more efficient at getting to your messages faster than your single hard driveA web-based system is LESS efficient because nothing is cached locally .
I use Gmail for some accounts , and every time I jump to a new message ( " conversation " ) , I have to wait several seconds while the page loads .
I periodically have cases where I get a blank white page because the internet connection timed out .
If the network goes offline for some reason , my e-mail is totally inaccessible .
Outlook ( or in my case Thunderbird ) has NONE of these problems because all the messages are right their on your laptop 's hard disk .
You can read them and search them with no internet at all.Her : Oh .
Now , is there a way I can put the same message in multiple folders without making a duplcate ? Me : Actually , with Gmail you can use labels to assign one message to multiple labels , making organization much easierIn other words , NO , Gmail does not have simple folders .
It has a different system called labels .
If you want to use Gmail , you need to learn how to use labels , and accept the claim that labels are better than folders.This claim might be true , but it 's interesting that to this day , simple folders are still the model used by file systems .
When filing , you want things to have a single location in a nice hierarchical tree .
Searching is useful , but it 's not the same as filing.Google 's biggest challenge is not a technical one- it 's a marketing one .
Google has to convince everyone that they have a product that really is better.No , Google 's challenge is to actually be better .
It 's great for personal e-mail , but regular people rarely need to " manage " their personal e-mail , since it 's mostly chatter that expires after 1 week .
By contrast , business e-mails are documents that need to be searched and sorted , with deadline pressure from the boss.You 've shown that this woman was unable to refute your spirited technical arguments .
But does that really mean she 's clueless and incapable of deciding which product meets her needs ? -Gonz</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Her: Outlook is so slow- the messages take forever to load!Outlook was probably slow because you were loading against Google's IMAP server on the internet, rather than from an Exchange server in the same office.
:-PMe: Well, you don't get that with a web-based system, because it is much more efficient at getting to your messages faster than your single hard driveA web-based system is LESS efficient because nothing is cached locally.
I use Gmail for some accounts, and every time I jump to a new message ("conversation"), I have to wait several seconds while the page loads.
I periodically have cases where I get a blank white page because the internet connection timed out.
If the network goes offline for some reason, my e-mail is totally inaccessible.
Outlook (or in my case Thunderbird) has NONE of these problems because all the messages are right their on your laptop's hard disk.
You can read them and search them with no internet at all.Her: Oh.
Now, is there a way I can put the same message in multiple folders without making a duplcate?Me: Actually, with Gmail you can use labels to assign one message to multiple labels, making organization much easierIn other words, NO, Gmail does not have simple folders.
It has a different system called labels.
If you want to use Gmail, you need to learn how to use labels, and accept the claim that labels are better than folders.This claim might be true, but it's interesting that to this day, simple folders are still the model used by file systems.
When filing, you want things to have a single location in a nice hierarchical tree.
Searching is useful, but it's not the same as filing.Google's biggest challenge is not a technical one- it's a marketing one.
Google has to convince everyone that they have a product that really is better.No, Google's challenge is to actually be better.
It's great for personal e-mail, but regular people rarely need to "manage" their personal e-mail, since it's mostly chatter that expires after 1 week.
By contrast, business e-mails are documents that need to be searched and sorted, with deadline pressure from the boss.You've shown that this woman was unable to refute your spirited technical arguments.
But does that really mean she's clueless and incapable of deciding which product meets her needs?-Gonz
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</id>
	<title>Too much in too little time</title>
	<author>BadAnalogyGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247412900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is trying to explode onto the scene with products and services that compete head to head with some very deeply ingrained technologies. Sometimes, like with the ChromeOS, it's like they are trying to compete against themselves.</p><p>What they will find is that earning a good reputation through customer satisfaction is the way to win over customers. Trying to bowl them over with competing products is almost never effective.</p><p>Google Search didn't kill Yahoo! search in one fell swoop.<br>Gmail didn't become dominant (and it still isn't) against Hotmail/Live Mail right away.<br>Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine, but still has stiff competition from Yahoo! Maps and MapQuest.</p><p>But lately, they've been producing new products at an astonishing rate. Taking the shotgun approach of seeing which spaghetti sticks to the wall, Google doesn't seem to have a larger view of what they want to do with their technical talent. This is going to be their downfall in the long run as the advertisement-based profit stream slowly dries up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is trying to explode onto the scene with products and services that compete head to head with some very deeply ingrained technologies .
Sometimes , like with the ChromeOS , it 's like they are trying to compete against themselves.What they will find is that earning a good reputation through customer satisfaction is the way to win over customers .
Trying to bowl them over with competing products is almost never effective.Google Search did n't kill Yahoo !
search in one fell swoop.Gmail did n't become dominant ( and it still is n't ) against Hotmail/Live Mail right away.Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine , but still has stiff competition from Yahoo !
Maps and MapQuest.But lately , they 've been producing new products at an astonishing rate .
Taking the shotgun approach of seeing which spaghetti sticks to the wall , Google does n't seem to have a larger view of what they want to do with their technical talent .
This is going to be their downfall in the long run as the advertisement-based profit stream slowly dries up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is trying to explode onto the scene with products and services that compete head to head with some very deeply ingrained technologies.
Sometimes, like with the ChromeOS, it's like they are trying to compete against themselves.What they will find is that earning a good reputation through customer satisfaction is the way to win over customers.
Trying to bowl them over with competing products is almost never effective.Google Search didn't kill Yahoo!
search in one fell swoop.Gmail didn't become dominant (and it still isn't) against Hotmail/Live Mail right away.Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine, but still has stiff competition from Yahoo!
Maps and MapQuest.But lately, they've been producing new products at an astonishing rate.
Taking the shotgun approach of seeing which spaghetti sticks to the wall, Google doesn't seem to have a larger view of what they want to do with their technical talent.
This is going to be their downfall in the long run as the advertisement-based profit stream slowly dries up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668681</id>
	<title>This is part of my job, and no, we won't be switch</title>
	<author>taustin</author>
	<datestamp>1247427060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And it's got nothing to do with behavioral inertia. Cloud computing adds an additional point of failure. Right now, with Office, if our T-1 goes down, OK, we can't check our email, but we can keep doing other things, like work on spreadsheets to send out by email when the T-1 is back up. With cloud computing, when the T-1 is down, everything is down.</p><p>Yeah, I know, Google Apps has options for working offline, but then, what's the point? How is it different, at that point, from Office?</p><p>No thanks. I know how reliable T-1s are. Yeah, pretty reliable, but without offline capabilities, we're out of business.</p><p>(Plus, I think whoever wrote this has little idea how many business use apps that Google will never have any interest in duplicating, like our cash register functions, and frankly, it would be illegal for us to let them handle some of that information anyway.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And it 's got nothing to do with behavioral inertia .
Cloud computing adds an additional point of failure .
Right now , with Office , if our T-1 goes down , OK , we ca n't check our email , but we can keep doing other things , like work on spreadsheets to send out by email when the T-1 is back up .
With cloud computing , when the T-1 is down , everything is down.Yeah , I know , Google Apps has options for working offline , but then , what 's the point ?
How is it different , at that point , from Office ? No thanks .
I know how reliable T-1s are .
Yeah , pretty reliable , but without offline capabilities , we 're out of business .
( Plus , I think whoever wrote this has little idea how many business use apps that Google will never have any interest in duplicating , like our cash register functions , and frankly , it would be illegal for us to let them handle some of that information anyway .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it's got nothing to do with behavioral inertia.
Cloud computing adds an additional point of failure.
Right now, with Office, if our T-1 goes down, OK, we can't check our email, but we can keep doing other things, like work on spreadsheets to send out by email when the T-1 is back up.
With cloud computing, when the T-1 is down, everything is down.Yeah, I know, Google Apps has options for working offline, but then, what's the point?
How is it different, at that point, from Office?No thanks.
I know how reliable T-1s are.
Yeah, pretty reliable, but without offline capabilities, we're out of business.
(Plus, I think whoever wrote this has little idea how many business use apps that Google will never have any interest in duplicating, like our cash register functions, and frankly, it would be illegal for us to let them handle some of that information anyway.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673085</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1247427000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>Amazing what an expensive lunch and some funny numbers on the back of a napkin can result in.  Do you get points for posts like the above and get to redeem them for MS software ?</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amazing what an expensive lunch and some funny numbers on the back of a napkin can result in .
Do you get points for posts like the above and get to redeem them for MS software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amazing what an expensive lunch and some funny numbers on the back of a napkin can result in.
Do you get points for posts like the above and get to redeem them for MS software ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667817</id>
	<title>Re:Give me an alternative...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247418360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You get 25GB of storage with the corporate GMail account... I'm at the rather high level of email by volume (PPTs, Visio, random people sending me pointless Mega-Zips) but 2.5GB a year doesn't sound too high.</p><p>The reason you have, and I had, all of those PST files is that one PST file can't be over 2GB and the search engines seem to prefer multiple small files anyway.  Switching it all into a 25GB GMail account stops that problem and stops the "oh look time to create a new PST file".</p><p>For those of us who actually search back through time in emails its a mega boon, especially as you don't get the occasional "Oh sorry, we've just realised that your PST file is trashed for no apparent reason.... and we trashed it about 2 years ago but this is the first time you've accessed it since then so all the backups are also trash."</p><p>25GB of Email storage, its a wonderful thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You get 25GB of storage with the corporate GMail account... I 'm at the rather high level of email by volume ( PPTs , Visio , random people sending me pointless Mega-Zips ) but 2.5GB a year does n't sound too high.The reason you have , and I had , all of those PST files is that one PST file ca n't be over 2GB and the search engines seem to prefer multiple small files anyway .
Switching it all into a 25GB GMail account stops that problem and stops the " oh look time to create a new PST file " .For those of us who actually search back through time in emails its a mega boon , especially as you do n't get the occasional " Oh sorry , we 've just realised that your PST file is trashed for no apparent reason.... and we trashed it about 2 years ago but this is the first time you 've accessed it since then so all the backups are also trash .
" 25GB of Email storage , its a wonderful thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You get 25GB of storage with the corporate GMail account... I'm at the rather high level of email by volume (PPTs, Visio, random people sending me pointless Mega-Zips) but 2.5GB a year doesn't sound too high.The reason you have, and I had, all of those PST files is that one PST file can't be over 2GB and the search engines seem to prefer multiple small files anyway.
Switching it all into a 25GB GMail account stops that problem and stops the "oh look time to create a new PST file".For those of us who actually search back through time in emails its a mega boon, especially as you don't get the occasional "Oh sorry, we've just realised that your PST file is trashed for no apparent reason.... and we trashed it about 2 years ago but this is the first time you've accessed it since then so all the backups are also trash.
"25GB of Email storage, its a wonderful thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671621</id>
	<title>Re:There's an App for That</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247409480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you read the page you linked?  It shows that the Premier Edition is required.  That's $50 per user per year for a desktop sync program; a far cry from an Exchange replacement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you read the page you linked ?
It shows that the Premier Edition is required .
That 's $ 50 per user per year for a desktop sync program ; a far cry from an Exchange replacement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you read the page you linked?
It shows that the Premier Edition is required.
That's $50 per user per year for a desktop sync program; a far cry from an Exchange replacement.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667633</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668307</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247423460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Office has significantly changed once in its entire history. Once. Windows, on the other hand, has actually changed ZERO times, unless you count trivial cosmetic changes, in which its changed twice in its entire history. Twice.</p><p>In short, you're full of shit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Office has significantly changed once in its entire history .
Once. Windows , on the other hand , has actually changed ZERO times , unless you count trivial cosmetic changes , in which its changed twice in its entire history .
Twice.In short , you 're full of shit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Office has significantly changed once in its entire history.
Once. Windows, on the other hand, has actually changed ZERO times, unless you count trivial cosmetic changes, in which its changed twice in its entire history.
Twice.In short, you're full of shit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669221</id>
	<title>Let me be the first one to ask</title>
	<author>KZigurs</author>
	<datestamp>1247431680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lotus Notes??? Really???</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lotus Notes ? ? ?
Really ? ? ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lotus Notes???
Really???</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669431</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>quetwo</author>
	<datestamp>1247390460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would disagree with this... Many hardware manufactures will not develop drivers for the Linux/Unix based platforms because they don't want to spend the R&amp;D for a driver that could potentially be very complicated, for just a niche market. This is the same reason why they don't make OS/2 or BeOS -- they are niche products.  A company will often make a decision -- do they delay a product for an additional 4 weeks in market time and make the Linux drivers, or do they ignore the potential 2\% of the market?  In the server world, the market share is much, much higher, which is why server-class products always have Linux drivers available for them.</p><p>The BLOB discussion is one that is pretty interesting too.  Many Linux enthusiast don't realize that hardware manufactures have lots of patents that they've applied for, and often have to deal with purchasing rights to certain patents to create their products.  When you have to deal in that world, you can't just give away the source code, especially if it deals with any of those technologies.  They are still allowing interop with their products for these OSes, but they also protect their IP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would disagree with this... Many hardware manufactures will not develop drivers for the Linux/Unix based platforms because they do n't want to spend the R&amp;D for a driver that could potentially be very complicated , for just a niche market .
This is the same reason why they do n't make OS/2 or BeOS -- they are niche products .
A company will often make a decision -- do they delay a product for an additional 4 weeks in market time and make the Linux drivers , or do they ignore the potential 2 \ % of the market ?
In the server world , the market share is much , much higher , which is why server-class products always have Linux drivers available for them.The BLOB discussion is one that is pretty interesting too .
Many Linux enthusiast do n't realize that hardware manufactures have lots of patents that they 've applied for , and often have to deal with purchasing rights to certain patents to create their products .
When you have to deal in that world , you ca n't just give away the source code , especially if it deals with any of those technologies .
They are still allowing interop with their products for these OSes , but they also protect their IP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would disagree with this... Many hardware manufactures will not develop drivers for the Linux/Unix based platforms because they don't want to spend the R&amp;D for a driver that could potentially be very complicated, for just a niche market.
This is the same reason why they don't make OS/2 or BeOS -- they are niche products.
A company will often make a decision -- do they delay a product for an additional 4 weeks in market time and make the Linux drivers, or do they ignore the potential 2\% of the market?
In the server world, the market share is much, much higher, which is why server-class products always have Linux drivers available for them.The BLOB discussion is one that is pretty interesting too.
Many Linux enthusiast don't realize that hardware manufactures have lots of patents that they've applied for, and often have to deal with purchasing rights to certain patents to create their products.
When you have to deal in that world, you can't just give away the source code, especially if it deals with any of those technologies.
They are still allowing interop with their products for these OSes, but they also protect their IP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667791</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft may just fix this themselves</title>
	<author>Nimey</author>
	<datestamp>1247418240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not at all true.  Plenty of installations of Office 97 and 2000 are still out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not at all true .
Plenty of installations of Office 97 and 2000 are still out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not at all true.
Plenty of installations of Office 97 and 2000 are still out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669853</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247393640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I see some microsoft fanboy couldn't think of a response and modded me down instead.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I see some microsoft fanboy could n't think of a response and modded me down instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see some microsoft fanboy couldn't think of a response and modded me down instead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667721</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247417700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zimbra - Whatever-email - Alfresco - BABY.</p><p>Zimbra - Free<br>Whatever-email - Free<br>Alfresco - Free</p><p>BABY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zimbra - Whatever-email - Alfresco - BABY.Zimbra - FreeWhatever-email - FreeAlfresco - FreeBABY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zimbra - Whatever-email - Alfresco - BABY.Zimbra - FreeWhatever-email - FreeAlfresco - FreeBABY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667917</id>
	<title>Amazingly short memories</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1247419620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's amazing to me is the loyalty to Microsoft being displayed in the vast majority of posts so far. It seems that people somehow don't remember all the headaches the Outlook+Exchange combo have caused users and admins over the past eight or nine years. Heck, wasn't it just last year that the silly "sorry, we don't know how to program correctly for daylight savings - so all your appointments for the next few weeks will be off by an hour" bug bit so many people?</p><p>But maybe, in this uncertain economy, all people can think about is job security? Well that's one thing; MS has been good job security for Windows admins...</p><p>I do know that our users have been extremely happy with our shift away from Outlook/Exchange calendaring this past year - we get a lot of "atta boys" regarding Google calendar. Our Exchange server has been turned off, and no one seems to miss it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's amazing to me is the loyalty to Microsoft being displayed in the vast majority of posts so far .
It seems that people somehow do n't remember all the headaches the Outlook + Exchange combo have caused users and admins over the past eight or nine years .
Heck , was n't it just last year that the silly " sorry , we do n't know how to program correctly for daylight savings - so all your appointments for the next few weeks will be off by an hour " bug bit so many people ? But maybe , in this uncertain economy , all people can think about is job security ?
Well that 's one thing ; MS has been good job security for Windows admins...I do know that our users have been extremely happy with our shift away from Outlook/Exchange calendaring this past year - we get a lot of " atta boys " regarding Google calendar .
Our Exchange server has been turned off , and no one seems to miss it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's amazing to me is the loyalty to Microsoft being displayed in the vast majority of posts so far.
It seems that people somehow don't remember all the headaches the Outlook+Exchange combo have caused users and admins over the past eight or nine years.
Heck, wasn't it just last year that the silly "sorry, we don't know how to program correctly for daylight savings - so all your appointments for the next few weeks will be off by an hour" bug bit so many people?But maybe, in this uncertain economy, all people can think about is job security?
Well that's one thing; MS has been good job security for Windows admins...I do know that our users have been extremely happy with our shift away from Outlook/Exchange calendaring this past year - we get a lot of "atta boys" regarding Google calendar.
Our Exchange server has been turned off, and no one seems to miss it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670473</id>
	<title>$$$Office$$$</title>
	<author>wasabii</author>
	<datestamp>1247398800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm just going to throw this out there. I'm evaluating upgrading out existing Office install from 2003 to 2007. The cost for this is around $400 per desktop, $650 if we do software assurance. That's $650 per machine in the office. Some of these machines we bought from dell for $400. That means Office costs more than the entire computer and Windows itself.

But I suspect we're still going to do it.

Why? Because We're talking $650 for basically 3 years of productivity software per individual. That's about a week of salary for an employee. In total it makes back WAY more than a week of an employee's time over 3 years. So it may feel like a huge amount of money up front. And it is. But it *is* worth it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm just going to throw this out there .
I 'm evaluating upgrading out existing Office install from 2003 to 2007 .
The cost for this is around $ 400 per desktop , $ 650 if we do software assurance .
That 's $ 650 per machine in the office .
Some of these machines we bought from dell for $ 400 .
That means Office costs more than the entire computer and Windows itself .
But I suspect we 're still going to do it .
Why ? Because We 're talking $ 650 for basically 3 years of productivity software per individual .
That 's about a week of salary for an employee .
In total it makes back WAY more than a week of an employee 's time over 3 years .
So it may feel like a huge amount of money up front .
And it is .
But it * is * worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm just going to throw this out there.
I'm evaluating upgrading out existing Office install from 2003 to 2007.
The cost for this is around $400 per desktop, $650 if we do software assurance.
That's $650 per machine in the office.
Some of these machines we bought from dell for $400.
That means Office costs more than the entire computer and Windows itself.
But I suspect we're still going to do it.
Why? Because We're talking $650 for basically 3 years of productivity software per individual.
That's about a week of salary for an employee.
In total it makes back WAY more than a week of an employee's time over 3 years.
So it may feel like a huge amount of money up front.
And it is.
But it *is* worth it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667159</id>
	<title>You can use outlook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247412540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not a great summary<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... the article mentions the synchronization tool, so outlook can be the front end.  http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook\_sync.html</p><p>Doesn't this make it a non-issue ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not a great summary .... the article mentions the synchronization tool , so outlook can be the front end .
http : //www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook \ _sync.htmlDoes n't this make it a non-issue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not a great summary .... the article mentions the synchronization tool, so outlook can be the front end.
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook\_sync.htmlDoesn't this make it a non-issue ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667335</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely true</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247414220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can't just write "outlook is not very good" as a fact. give us reasons! In my organization it's a very useful tool that cut's down secretarial work to a minimum.  No other tool I know is that well integrated with other office tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you ca n't just write " outlook is not very good " as a fact .
give us reasons !
In my organization it 's a very useful tool that cut 's down secretarial work to a minimum .
No other tool I know is that well integrated with other office tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can't just write "outlook is not very good" as a fact.
give us reasons!
In my organization it's a very useful tool that cut's down secretarial work to a minimum.
No other tool I know is that well integrated with other office tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668929</id>
	<title>Biased sample</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247429160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook inertia may apply to users already use gmail, but only a minority of business users use gmail. Generally speaking, businesses would be strongly advised against maintaining confidential corporate data (most business e-mail) on a google server.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook inertia may apply to users already use gmail , but only a minority of business users use gmail .
Generally speaking , businesses would be strongly advised against maintaining confidential corporate data ( most business e-mail ) on a google server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook inertia may apply to users already use gmail, but only a minority of business users use gmail.
Generally speaking, businesses would be strongly advised against maintaining confidential corporate data (most business e-mail) on a google server.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670087</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247395200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure I've seen anyone who needed 'training' for an Office upgrade.  Office upgrades are basically skinning changes, and have been since Office 95.  Office 2k7 was a rather drastic change, but its still basically a skin change.</p><p>Vista was a bad one.  I, a rather technical person could not get used to it and won't use it.  I however love Win7 compared to Vista.  It is an acceptable upgrade.  Of course, I prefer XP over Win2k so I'm part of that group of people who like 'pretty and cute' in their OS, not 'ugly and as efficient as possible'.  Either one is acceptable, not knocking the people who like the Win2k style interface, it just doesn't do it for me anymore, looks old and out dated.</p><p>I don't see anyone needing training for Win7 upgrades except for IT personal who have to deal with bugs, and maybe a few minutes explaining the task bar differences, but there really won't be much training there either.</p><p>Why do you think it will require a bunch of retraining?  Do you need retraining every time you change your KDE or GTK skin?  I can understand if you do, some of them are outright horrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure I 've seen anyone who needed 'training ' for an Office upgrade .
Office upgrades are basically skinning changes , and have been since Office 95 .
Office 2k7 was a rather drastic change , but its still basically a skin change.Vista was a bad one .
I , a rather technical person could not get used to it and wo n't use it .
I however love Win7 compared to Vista .
It is an acceptable upgrade .
Of course , I prefer XP over Win2k so I 'm part of that group of people who like 'pretty and cute ' in their OS , not 'ugly and as efficient as possible' .
Either one is acceptable , not knocking the people who like the Win2k style interface , it just does n't do it for me anymore , looks old and out dated.I do n't see anyone needing training for Win7 upgrades except for IT personal who have to deal with bugs , and maybe a few minutes explaining the task bar differences , but there really wo n't be much training there either.Why do you think it will require a bunch of retraining ?
Do you need retraining every time you change your KDE or GTK skin ?
I can understand if you do , some of them are outright horrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure I've seen anyone who needed 'training' for an Office upgrade.
Office upgrades are basically skinning changes, and have been since Office 95.
Office 2k7 was a rather drastic change, but its still basically a skin change.Vista was a bad one.
I, a rather technical person could not get used to it and won't use it.
I however love Win7 compared to Vista.
It is an acceptable upgrade.
Of course, I prefer XP over Win2k so I'm part of that group of people who like 'pretty and cute' in their OS, not 'ugly and as efficient as possible'.
Either one is acceptable, not knocking the people who like the Win2k style interface, it just doesn't do it for me anymore, looks old and out dated.I don't see anyone needing training for Win7 upgrades except for IT personal who have to deal with bugs, and maybe a few minutes explaining the task bar differences, but there really won't be much training there either.Why do you think it will require a bunch of retraining?
Do you need retraining every time you change your KDE or GTK skin?
I can understand if you do, some of them are outright horrible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169</id>
	<title>Market it to Notes users</title>
	<author>chiph</author>
	<datestamp>1247412720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll change in a heartbeat -- anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Anything! to get away from Notes.</p><p>Chip H.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll change in a heartbeat -- anything .. Anything ! to get away from Notes.Chip H .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll change in a heartbeat -- anything .. Anything! to get away from Notes.Chip H.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669787</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1247393160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe").</i>
</p><p>False.
</p><p> <i>The shell sucks.</i>
</p><p>How so ?
</p><p> <i>The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, , ", *,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:, | characters allowed).</i>
</p><p>These are limitations within the shell, not the filesystem.
</p><p> <i>Case insensitive filenames.</i>
</p><p>This is most definitely a feature, not a problem.
</p><p> <i>No package manager (at all!).</i>
</p><p>That's because it doesn't have the dependency hell that requires such a thing in Linux.
</p><p> <i>Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems.</i>
</p><p>Windows has supported (easily) mounting drives underneath directories for nearly a decade.  People prefer drives because they are a more sensible organisation tool.
</p><p> <i>Spaces in system path names.</i>
</p><p>Irrelevant at best.  Not to mention, why would you be referencing paths (that might not be consistent) across systems instead of using the environment variables or API calls ?
</p><p> <i>Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables.</i>
</p><p>For example ?
</p><p> <i>A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser.</i>
</p><p>That most people find more than adequate.  Can't be that bad.
</p><p> <i>Lots of GUI-only configuration.</i>
</p><p>Irrelevant.
</p><p> <i>The registry.</i>
</p><p>What's the problem with a transactional database ?
</p><p> <i>No SSH.</i>
</p><p>Remote desktop instead.
</p><p> <i>No X.</i>
</p><p>Terminal services and remote desktop is superior in pretty much every way.
</p><p> <i>No basic commands (find, grep, ln, df, du, etc.; part of shell sucking really).</i>
</p><p>Irrelevant to most all users.  Installable for those who desire it.
</p><p> <i>Extremely shitty text editor.</i>
</p><p>Irrelevant and unnecessary.
</p><p> <i>Regular BSODs (yes, even Vista; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic, or any other crash that required a reboot).</i>
</p><p>If your system is BSODing regularly, your hardware or drivers are broken.  Not an OS issue.
</p><p> <i>No decent interpreters (even the barest unix installs always have an awk, and almost always have perl).</i>
</p><p>Also irrelevant and unnecessary to most all users.  Installable if desired.
</p><p> <i>So not only is it expensive and proprietary, it's technically inferior in almost every way.</i>
</p><p>You've listed a whole bunch of stuff that's either flat-out erroneous or userspace personal preference.  Nothing technical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename ( ie " .exe " ) .
False . The shell sucks .
How so ?
The filesystem has all kinds of stupid , arbitrary limitations ( like no ? , , " , * , : , | characters allowed ) .
These are limitations within the shell , not the filesystem .
Case insensitive filenames .
This is most definitely a feature , not a problem .
No package manager ( at all ! ) .
That 's because it does n't have the dependency hell that requires such a thing in Linux .
Still use archaic " drives " for the filesystems .
Windows has supported ( easily ) mounting drives underneath directories for nearly a decade .
People prefer drives because they are a more sensible organisation tool .
Spaces in system path names .
Irrelevant at best .
Not to mention , why would you be referencing paths ( that might not be consistent ) across systems instead of using the environment variables or API calls ?
Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables .
For example ?
A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser .
That most people find more than adequate .
Ca n't be that bad .
Lots of GUI-only configuration .
Irrelevant . The registry .
What 's the problem with a transactional database ?
No SSH .
Remote desktop instead .
No X . Terminal services and remote desktop is superior in pretty much every way .
No basic commands ( find , grep , ln , df , du , etc .
; part of shell sucking really ) .
Irrelevant to most all users .
Installable for those who desire it .
Extremely shitty text editor .
Irrelevant and unnecessary .
Regular BSODs ( yes , even Vista ; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic , or any other crash that required a reboot ) .
If your system is BSODing regularly , your hardware or drivers are broken .
Not an OS issue .
No decent interpreters ( even the barest unix installs always have an awk , and almost always have perl ) .
Also irrelevant and unnecessary to most all users .
Installable if desired .
So not only is it expensive and proprietary , it 's technically inferior in almost every way .
You 've listed a whole bunch of stuff that 's either flat-out erroneous or userspace personal preference .
Nothing technical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe").
False.
 The shell sucks.
How so ?
The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, , ", *, :, | characters allowed).
These are limitations within the shell, not the filesystem.
Case insensitive filenames.
This is most definitely a feature, not a problem.
No package manager (at all!).
That's because it doesn't have the dependency hell that requires such a thing in Linux.
Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems.
Windows has supported (easily) mounting drives underneath directories for nearly a decade.
People prefer drives because they are a more sensible organisation tool.
Spaces in system path names.
Irrelevant at best.
Not to mention, why would you be referencing paths (that might not be consistent) across systems instead of using the environment variables or API calls ?
Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables.
For example ?
A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser.
That most people find more than adequate.
Can't be that bad.
Lots of GUI-only configuration.
Irrelevant.
 The registry.
What's the problem with a transactional database ?
No SSH.
Remote desktop instead.
No X.
Terminal services and remote desktop is superior in pretty much every way.
No basic commands (find, grep, ln, df, du, etc.
; part of shell sucking really).
Irrelevant to most all users.
Installable for those who desire it.
Extremely shitty text editor.
Irrelevant and unnecessary.
Regular BSODs (yes, even Vista; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic, or any other crash that required a reboot).
If your system is BSODing regularly, your hardware or drivers are broken.
Not an OS issue.
No decent interpreters (even the barest unix installs always have an awk, and almost always have perl).
Also irrelevant and unnecessary to most all users.
Installable if desired.
So not only is it expensive and proprietary, it's technically inferior in almost every way.
You've listed a whole bunch of stuff that's either flat-out erroneous or userspace personal preference.
Nothing technical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673749</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247480160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still using VisiCalc and WordStar, are you?</p><p>PS They were very good in their time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still using VisiCalc and WordStar , are you ? PS They were very good in their time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still using VisiCalc and WordStar, are you?PS They were very good in their time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672853</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely true</title>
	<author>vonFinkelstien</author>
	<datestamp>1247423340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. I absolutely HATE Outlook. It's the most unintuitive program I've ever used. Unfortunately last year I substituted at a school that ran virtualized Windows from Sun Rays. I wasn't allowed to install Thunderbird. I tried the portable version, but it was blocked by the Nazi-like proxy. Ugh, which did I hate more--teaching junior high kids there or using Outlook? Tough call.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
I absolutely HATE Outlook .
It 's the most unintuitive program I 've ever used .
Unfortunately last year I substituted at a school that ran virtualized Windows from Sun Rays .
I was n't allowed to install Thunderbird .
I tried the portable version , but it was blocked by the Nazi-like proxy .
Ugh , which did I hate more--teaching junior high kids there or using Outlook ?
Tough call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
I absolutely HATE Outlook.
It's the most unintuitive program I've ever used.
Unfortunately last year I substituted at a school that ran virtualized Windows from Sun Rays.
I wasn't allowed to install Thunderbird.
I tried the portable version, but it was blocked by the Nazi-like proxy.
Ugh, which did I hate more--teaching junior high kids there or using Outlook?
Tough call.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667549</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247416500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You say that as if Windows were an operating system. That is like saying that a Bobby Car is fit and eligible for the 24 hours of Le Mans race. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You say that as if Windows were an operating system .
That is like saying that a Bobby Car is fit and eligible for the 24 hours of Le Mans race .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You say that as if Windows were an operating system.
That is like saying that a Bobby Car is fit and eligible for the 24 hours of Le Mans race.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667445</id>
	<title>Outlook has ton of features</title>
	<author>Paul Carver</author>
	<datestamp>1247415540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never used Google Apps, but I've used Gmail and it doesn't hold a candle to Outlook in terms of features. The ability to search all mail quickly is a great feature, but that's just one feature compared to dozens if not hundreds of features that Outlook has that Gmail lacks.</p><p>There is no free mail client that comes anywhere close to the configurability of Outlook. I use Outlook at work and Thunderbird at home and I'm constantly frustrated by the unconfigurable straitjacket of Thunderbird. I suppose the classic open source answer is that if Thunderbird doesn't do what I want I should shut up and code the features myself or write a mail client from scratch. The non-zealot answer is just to use Outlook because it works well and is extremely configurable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never used Google Apps , but I 've used Gmail and it does n't hold a candle to Outlook in terms of features .
The ability to search all mail quickly is a great feature , but that 's just one feature compared to dozens if not hundreds of features that Outlook has that Gmail lacks.There is no free mail client that comes anywhere close to the configurability of Outlook .
I use Outlook at work and Thunderbird at home and I 'm constantly frustrated by the unconfigurable straitjacket of Thunderbird .
I suppose the classic open source answer is that if Thunderbird does n't do what I want I should shut up and code the features myself or write a mail client from scratch .
The non-zealot answer is just to use Outlook because it works well and is extremely configurable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never used Google Apps, but I've used Gmail and it doesn't hold a candle to Outlook in terms of features.
The ability to search all mail quickly is a great feature, but that's just one feature compared to dozens if not hundreds of features that Outlook has that Gmail lacks.There is no free mail client that comes anywhere close to the configurability of Outlook.
I use Outlook at work and Thunderbird at home and I'm constantly frustrated by the unconfigurable straitjacket of Thunderbird.
I suppose the classic open source answer is that if Thunderbird doesn't do what I want I should shut up and code the features myself or write a mail client from scratch.
The non-zealot answer is just to use Outlook because it works well and is extremely configurable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670279</id>
	<title>Sometimes it is, but sometimes it's little stuff!</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1247396940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of my friends just tried deploying Google Apps to their entire company, switching everyone off of Outlook for email.  95\% of the people were perfectly ok with it (at least after a bit of "coaching" so they didn't fear the changes).  The problem was with the remaining 5\%, who tended to be corporate "big wigs" and top producing sales staff.  They took issue with things most of us would consider so minor, it was ridiculous -- yet were difficult to impossible to change.</p><p>EG.  One guy had a hard time with the idea that auto-quoting of email replies didn't retain the exact same format Outlook used.  Google uses the old-fashioned (familiar to all of us in the BBS days) method of quoting with "&gt;" signs in front of each line.  The user just couldn't cope with that change, insisting it looked totally "unprofessional".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of my friends just tried deploying Google Apps to their entire company , switching everyone off of Outlook for email .
95 \ % of the people were perfectly ok with it ( at least after a bit of " coaching " so they did n't fear the changes ) .
The problem was with the remaining 5 \ % , who tended to be corporate " big wigs " and top producing sales staff .
They took issue with things most of us would consider so minor , it was ridiculous -- yet were difficult to impossible to change.EG .
One guy had a hard time with the idea that auto-quoting of email replies did n't retain the exact same format Outlook used .
Google uses the old-fashioned ( familiar to all of us in the BBS days ) method of quoting with " &gt; " signs in front of each line .
The user just could n't cope with that change , insisting it looked totally " unprofessional " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of my friends just tried deploying Google Apps to their entire company, switching everyone off of Outlook for email.
95\% of the people were perfectly ok with it (at least after a bit of "coaching" so they didn't fear the changes).
The problem was with the remaining 5\%, who tended to be corporate "big wigs" and top producing sales staff.
They took issue with things most of us would consider so minor, it was ridiculous -- yet were difficult to impossible to change.EG.
One guy had a hard time with the idea that auto-quoting of email replies didn't retain the exact same format Outlook used.
Google uses the old-fashioned (familiar to all of us in the BBS days) method of quoting with "&gt;" signs in front of each line.
The user just couldn't cope with that change, insisting it looked totally "unprofessional".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667431</id>
	<title>Re:Absolutely true</title>
	<author>SirLurksAlot</author>
	<datestamp>1247415360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'd like to know what you're basing this comparison on.  Do you use Outlook in your daily routine?  My work life is absolutely run by Calendar and Tasks and I'm sure this is the case for the vast majority of users.  I'll also say that compared to Outlook 2003 the 2007 version is head-and-shoulders better.  Tasks are much easier to work with, and the ability to categorize messages makes inbox management much easier (though I'd really rather see categories replaced with tags).  My only complaint is that Outlook likes to freeze up on me, but that is entirely due to the fact that our Exchange server is overworked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really is n't very good.I 'd like to know what you 're basing this comparison on .
Do you use Outlook in your daily routine ?
My work life is absolutely run by Calendar and Tasks and I 'm sure this is the case for the vast majority of users .
I 'll also say that compared to Outlook 2003 the 2007 version is head-and-shoulders better .
Tasks are much easier to work with , and the ability to categorize messages makes inbox management much easier ( though I 'd really rather see categories replaced with tags ) .
My only complaint is that Outlook likes to freeze up on me , but that is entirely due to the fact that our Exchange server is overworked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.I'd like to know what you're basing this comparison on.
Do you use Outlook in your daily routine?
My work life is absolutely run by Calendar and Tasks and I'm sure this is the case for the vast majority of users.
I'll also say that compared to Outlook 2003 the 2007 version is head-and-shoulders better.
Tasks are much easier to work with, and the ability to categorize messages makes inbox management much easier (though I'd really rather see categories replaced with tags).
My only complaint is that Outlook likes to freeze up on me, but that is entirely due to the fact that our Exchange server is overworked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672209</id>
	<title>I totally agree!</title>
	<author>drew73</author>
	<datestamp>1247415420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I totally agree!  My company would be lost withouth Outlook and Office for that matter...  Google can try to take over ther world, but they are going to have to offer something more than cloud computing...  It's just the next business model to syphen money out of your pocket.  Companies don't even want to sell you software anymore, they want to rent it to you!  This world is going to hell in a handbasket!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I totally agree !
My company would be lost withouth Outlook and Office for that matter... Google can try to take over ther world , but they are going to have to offer something more than cloud computing... It 's just the next business model to syphen money out of your pocket .
Companies do n't even want to sell you software anymore , they want to rent it to you !
This world is going to hell in a handbasket !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I totally agree!
My company would be lost withouth Outlook and Office for that matter...  Google can try to take over ther world, but they are going to have to offer something more than cloud computing...  It's just the next business model to syphen money out of your pocket.
Companies don't even want to sell you software anymore, they want to rent it to you!
This world is going to hell in a handbasket!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671157</id>
	<title>Symptom sounds right, cause not quite so close</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247405160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ugh, Outlook how I hate and love thee.</p><p>Intertia may be strong, but at least with mail, sticking Outlook is not necessarily some emotional anti-response to change.   Though it is a bloaty, slow, crash-prone steaming pile, no other mail system really comes close to it (that I've been able to find).  Mail systems have various features that are better, yes, but none of them has it all particularly the integration of calendaring, contacts, filtering (with SpamBayes), GUI ease of use; and the degree of seamlessness between them.</p><p>I run Ubuntu but my company runs Exchange 2007, so I can't hook into all that; the most I can get is IMAP, which is a poor second choice.   I'm really debating whether to keep a VirtualBox going JUST for Outlook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ugh , Outlook how I hate and love thee.Intertia may be strong , but at least with mail , sticking Outlook is not necessarily some emotional anti-response to change .
Though it is a bloaty , slow , crash-prone steaming pile , no other mail system really comes close to it ( that I 've been able to find ) .
Mail systems have various features that are better , yes , but none of them has it all particularly the integration of calendaring , contacts , filtering ( with SpamBayes ) , GUI ease of use ; and the degree of seamlessness between them.I run Ubuntu but my company runs Exchange 2007 , so I ca n't hook into all that ; the most I can get is IMAP , which is a poor second choice .
I 'm really debating whether to keep a VirtualBox going JUST for Outlook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ugh, Outlook how I hate and love thee.Intertia may be strong, but at least with mail, sticking Outlook is not necessarily some emotional anti-response to change.
Though it is a bloaty, slow, crash-prone steaming pile, no other mail system really comes close to it (that I've been able to find).
Mail systems have various features that are better, yes, but none of them has it all particularly the integration of calendaring, contacts, filtering (with SpamBayes), GUI ease of use; and the degree of seamlessness between them.I run Ubuntu but my company runs Exchange 2007, so I can't hook into all that; the most I can get is IMAP, which is a poor second choice.
I'm really debating whether to keep a VirtualBox going JUST for Outlook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669103</id>
	<title>Combos</title>
	<author>lnxpilot</author>
	<datestamp>1247430540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I despise Microsoft (I use Linux and Mac exclusively and I won't touch anything Microsoft with a 10 foot pole),<br>I can relate to the workers.<br>For example, I really tried liking Firefox and used it for over a year, but eventually went back to Mozilla because I can't live without the *built-in* email client.<br>The Firefox-Thunderbird combo is just not the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I despise Microsoft ( I use Linux and Mac exclusively and I wo n't touch anything Microsoft with a 10 foot pole ) ,I can relate to the workers.For example , I really tried liking Firefox and used it for over a year , but eventually went back to Mozilla because I ca n't live without the * built-in * email client.The Firefox-Thunderbird combo is just not the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I despise Microsoft (I use Linux and Mac exclusively and I won't touch anything Microsoft with a 10 foot pole),I can relate to the workers.For example, I really tried liking Firefox and used it for over a year, but eventually went back to Mozilla because I can't live without the *built-in* email client.The Firefox-Thunderbird combo is just not the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667469</id>
	<title>Re:Secrecy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247415720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work at a mid-sized American university. We recently transitioned some 30000 email accounts to Google. Many other universities have done/are doing the same. Personally, I trust Google more than I trust the average IT department.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work at a mid-sized American university .
We recently transitioned some 30000 email accounts to Google .
Many other universities have done/are doing the same .
Personally , I trust Google more than I trust the average IT department .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work at a mid-sized American university.
We recently transitioned some 30000 email accounts to Google.
Many other universities have done/are doing the same.
Personally, I trust Google more than I trust the average IT department.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28681209</id>
	<title>Re:What The Fuck?</title>
	<author>InverseParadox</author>
	<datestamp>1247517060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You know what I want? A tag based filesystem. WTF should I have to manage directories?</p></div><p>Interesting you should mention that on this particular story.</p><p>I no longer use Gmail's Web interface, but last I heard, they had pretty much ignored the concept of folders/directories per se, choosing instead to present "views" (not their term, IIRC) based on user-defined searches. (This leads to annoyances such as their refusal to store more than one copy of a message, as determined by Message-ID, but that's another topic.) I remember having also been able to tag messages explicitly as one thing or another, and do so in an automatic fashion based on pattern-matching rules; having done so, you can then define a "view" for all messages with that tag.</p><p>I don't like Gmail's interface, for various reasons, but this underlying idea is interesting; it looks like much the same type of thing you're asking for, and I think it's the first "live" implementation of something like that I've ever come across.</p><p>I don't know if they've implemented this same kind of taggability and "view"ability for Google Apps documents (I don't use that service at all), but it wouldn't surprise me if it were possible.</p><p>Furthermore, given the recently-reported upcoming "Chrome OS", it's not impossible that you'll see something resembling a filesystem with this capability before terribly long...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what I want ?
A tag based filesystem .
WTF should I have to manage directories ? Interesting you should mention that on this particular story.I no longer use Gmail 's Web interface , but last I heard , they had pretty much ignored the concept of folders/directories per se , choosing instead to present " views " ( not their term , IIRC ) based on user-defined searches .
( This leads to annoyances such as their refusal to store more than one copy of a message , as determined by Message-ID , but that 's another topic .
) I remember having also been able to tag messages explicitly as one thing or another , and do so in an automatic fashion based on pattern-matching rules ; having done so , you can then define a " view " for all messages with that tag.I do n't like Gmail 's interface , for various reasons , but this underlying idea is interesting ; it looks like much the same type of thing you 're asking for , and I think it 's the first " live " implementation of something like that I 've ever come across.I do n't know if they 've implemented this same kind of taggability and " view " ability for Google Apps documents ( I do n't use that service at all ) , but it would n't surprise me if it were possible.Furthermore , given the recently-reported upcoming " Chrome OS " , it 's not impossible that you 'll see something resembling a filesystem with this capability before terribly long.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what I want?
A tag based filesystem.
WTF should I have to manage directories?Interesting you should mention that on this particular story.I no longer use Gmail's Web interface, but last I heard, they had pretty much ignored the concept of folders/directories per se, choosing instead to present "views" (not their term, IIRC) based on user-defined searches.
(This leads to annoyances such as their refusal to store more than one copy of a message, as determined by Message-ID, but that's another topic.
) I remember having also been able to tag messages explicitly as one thing or another, and do so in an automatic fashion based on pattern-matching rules; having done so, you can then define a "view" for all messages with that tag.I don't like Gmail's interface, for various reasons, but this underlying idea is interesting; it looks like much the same type of thing you're asking for, and I think it's the first "live" implementation of something like that I've ever come across.I don't know if they've implemented this same kind of taggability and "view"ability for Google Apps documents (I don't use that service at all), but it wouldn't surprise me if it were possible.Furthermore, given the recently-reported upcoming "Chrome OS", it's not impossible that you'll see something resembling a filesystem with this capability before terribly long...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668093</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668841</id>
	<title>From a Google App User Viewpoint...</title>
	<author>SuperCharlie</author>
	<datestamp>1247428500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a very small business. I set up Google Apps and use the entire collection of services.<br> <br>

First off, I have found that it does not provide the same stability as Gmail. It looks the same, but is is definitely not the same. We have uptime issues, cross-cookie issues with igoogle and gmail and it is generally not as stable as any other email solution I have used including Exchange.<br> <br>

It is worth about what you pay for it.. we are under 50 accounts, so it is free. If it cost, I would pay $30 a month to a web provider for all you can eat email and be done with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a very small business .
I set up Google Apps and use the entire collection of services .
First off , I have found that it does not provide the same stability as Gmail .
It looks the same , but is is definitely not the same .
We have uptime issues , cross-cookie issues with igoogle and gmail and it is generally not as stable as any other email solution I have used including Exchange .
It is worth about what you pay for it.. we are under 50 accounts , so it is free .
If it cost , I would pay $ 30 a month to a web provider for all you can eat email and be done with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a very small business.
I set up Google Apps and use the entire collection of services.
First off, I have found that it does not provide the same stability as Gmail.
It looks the same, but is is definitely not the same.
We have uptime issues, cross-cookie issues with igoogle and gmail and it is generally not as stable as any other email solution I have used including Exchange.
It is worth about what you pay for it.. we are under 50 accounts, so it is free.
If it cost, I would pay $30 a month to a web provider for all you can eat email and be done with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668709</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247427300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait...hold the phone. From what i've read Vista went no where, in business. I'm sitting here in a large multi national company typing on a Windows 2000 machine (with promises of xp soon!) with office 2003...</p><p>What are you talking about with the companies jumping ship to vista and new(er) MS products?</p><p>Hell, I'm suprised their McAfee's is up to date... we got hit with conficker so many not...?... lol</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait...hold the phone .
From what i 've read Vista went no where , in business .
I 'm sitting here in a large multi national company typing on a Windows 2000 machine ( with promises of xp soon !
) with office 2003...What are you talking about with the companies jumping ship to vista and new ( er ) MS products ? Hell , I 'm suprised their McAfee 's is up to date... we got hit with conficker so many not... ? .. .
lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait...hold the phone.
From what i've read Vista went no where, in business.
I'm sitting here in a large multi national company typing on a Windows 2000 machine (with promises of xp soon!
) with office 2003...What are you talking about with the companies jumping ship to vista and new(er) MS products?Hell, I'm suprised their McAfee's is up to date... we got hit with conficker so many not...?...
lol</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668093</id>
	<title>What The Fuck?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1247420940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux's file dialogs</p></div><p>Really? That's it? That's all you can come up with?</p><p><b>All</b> the current OS concepts of file management "suck donkey balls" as they say. You know what I want? A tag based filesystem. WTF should I have to manage directories?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux 's file dialogsReally ?
That 's it ?
That 's all you can come up with ? All the current OS concepts of file management " suck donkey balls " as they say .
You know what I want ?
A tag based filesystem .
WTF should I have to manage directories ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux's file dialogsReally?
That's it?
That's all you can come up with?All the current OS concepts of file management "suck donkey balls" as they say.
You know what I want?
A tag based filesystem.
WTF should I have to manage directories?
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669575</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247391720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now the lockin generated by the Exchange/Outlook combo is very deep. But then the limitations become aparent when you want to do something without a Windows device. But is is difficult to find anything that integrates mail, contact and calendaring as easily and simply as Outlook and Exchange. What it really needs are some standards based hooks for apps to use rather than proprietary MAPI, and these are starting to appear, but are still feature crippled or not trivial to setup and secure.<br>Interestingly, Apple has one of the easiest mail/calendar/contact systems to setup to compete with a single server Exchange environment, but a huge chunk of the target market wont be able to break the rest of the Office/Windows lock in from their users and businesses easily.<br>Groupwise is getting pretty good too, and does have the advantage of running on Windows, Linux or Netware, but again the eDirectory model will be very foreign to many businesses, so inertia will keep Exchange dominant for a long time.</p><p>Also Exchanges enterprise and redundancy features are now finally getting really good, if only hey would open up the client side, but of course, MS will never do that willingly. All of the other mail systems are forced to be standards compliant as they don't own the clients the way MS does.</p><p>For myself though, breaking the MS Office dependency was the hardest part, now free of it, I can use any system I want. Currently running a SLES10 server with cyrus imap for mail, but lacking integrated calendaring and contacts, so I just put OS X server on a Mac Mini. This is fantasticly easy to setup, and integrated well with my existing LDAP directory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the lockin generated by the Exchange/Outlook combo is very deep .
But then the limitations become aparent when you want to do something without a Windows device .
But is is difficult to find anything that integrates mail , contact and calendaring as easily and simply as Outlook and Exchange .
What it really needs are some standards based hooks for apps to use rather than proprietary MAPI , and these are starting to appear , but are still feature crippled or not trivial to setup and secure.Interestingly , Apple has one of the easiest mail/calendar/contact systems to setup to compete with a single server Exchange environment , but a huge chunk of the target market wont be able to break the rest of the Office/Windows lock in from their users and businesses easily.Groupwise is getting pretty good too , and does have the advantage of running on Windows , Linux or Netware , but again the eDirectory model will be very foreign to many businesses , so inertia will keep Exchange dominant for a long time.Also Exchanges enterprise and redundancy features are now finally getting really good , if only hey would open up the client side , but of course , MS will never do that willingly .
All of the other mail systems are forced to be standards compliant as they do n't own the clients the way MS does.For myself though , breaking the MS Office dependency was the hardest part , now free of it , I can use any system I want .
Currently running a SLES10 server with cyrus imap for mail , but lacking integrated calendaring and contacts , so I just put OS X server on a Mac Mini .
This is fantasticly easy to setup , and integrated well with my existing LDAP directory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the lockin generated by the Exchange/Outlook combo is very deep.
But then the limitations become aparent when you want to do something without a Windows device.
But is is difficult to find anything that integrates mail, contact and calendaring as easily and simply as Outlook and Exchange.
What it really needs are some standards based hooks for apps to use rather than proprietary MAPI, and these are starting to appear, but are still feature crippled or not trivial to setup and secure.Interestingly, Apple has one of the easiest mail/calendar/contact systems to setup to compete with a single server Exchange environment, but a huge chunk of the target market wont be able to break the rest of the Office/Windows lock in from their users and businesses easily.Groupwise is getting pretty good too, and does have the advantage of running on Windows, Linux or Netware, but again the eDirectory model will be very foreign to many businesses, so inertia will keep Exchange dominant for a long time.Also Exchanges enterprise and redundancy features are now finally getting really good, if only hey would open up the client side, but of course, MS will never do that willingly.
All of the other mail systems are forced to be standards compliant as they don't own the clients the way MS does.For myself though, breaking the MS Office dependency was the hardest part, now free of it, I can use any system I want.
Currently running a SLES10 server with cyrus imap for mail, but lacking integrated calendaring and contacts, so I just put OS X server on a Mac Mini.
This is fantasticly easy to setup, and integrated well with my existing LDAP directory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668715</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>zullnero</author>
	<datestamp>1247427360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you think people who don't do software for a living would give up something that works?
<br> <br>
They don't have any real emotional ties to philosophy around software.  And honestly, they couldn't care less how much the company pays for it, as long as it works and they don't have to tinker with it or worry about a lot of outages.  To them, Microsoft isn't "evil", it's just this company that makes this thing they use and don't think twice about.  These are people who are more concerned about getting the right customers, keeping those customers, their families, their bosses, getting a report out by tomorrow...they frequently don't want to risk change if change doesn't appear to be needed.
<br> <br>
The bottom line is this:  The only way you're ever going to make inroads into that is to add features and sell those features as something people will absolutely require.  They're used to how they save and deal with files...they couldn't care less if it's stored on the "cloud", and a whole lot of them aren't sure about the security of that because they don't understand network security.  They feel more secure about things being on a thumb drive in their pocket, unconnected to anything (until they spyware it up when they hook it to their kid's computer).  You have to make real features that save people lots of time.  And it's hard.  Microsoft had a 20 year head start on Google Apps.  The best people are able to do is to imitate and offer something for free.  Free is easy to see for an admin, but selling free to people who livelihood isn't saving money on infrastructure, but is actually getting things done without outages, takes something that is worth the risk.
<br> <br>
I haven't seen a whole lot of risk taking lately by a lot of the "non-Microsoft" community, and it really hurts me to say that.  We think a risk is a sneaky backdoor way to do something really slickly behind the scenes, but when it comes to making things more configurable and more responsive to an individual's needs, more able to help them finish their work faster, aside from a few exceptions...most of us completely miss the boat.  You aren't going to budge that rock unless you can make a bigger rock.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you think people who do n't do software for a living would give up something that works ?
They do n't have any real emotional ties to philosophy around software .
And honestly , they could n't care less how much the company pays for it , as long as it works and they do n't have to tinker with it or worry about a lot of outages .
To them , Microsoft is n't " evil " , it 's just this company that makes this thing they use and do n't think twice about .
These are people who are more concerned about getting the right customers , keeping those customers , their families , their bosses , getting a report out by tomorrow...they frequently do n't want to risk change if change does n't appear to be needed .
The bottom line is this : The only way you 're ever going to make inroads into that is to add features and sell those features as something people will absolutely require .
They 're used to how they save and deal with files...they could n't care less if it 's stored on the " cloud " , and a whole lot of them are n't sure about the security of that because they do n't understand network security .
They feel more secure about things being on a thumb drive in their pocket , unconnected to anything ( until they spyware it up when they hook it to their kid 's computer ) .
You have to make real features that save people lots of time .
And it 's hard .
Microsoft had a 20 year head start on Google Apps .
The best people are able to do is to imitate and offer something for free .
Free is easy to see for an admin , but selling free to people who livelihood is n't saving money on infrastructure , but is actually getting things done without outages , takes something that is worth the risk .
I have n't seen a whole lot of risk taking lately by a lot of the " non-Microsoft " community , and it really hurts me to say that .
We think a risk is a sneaky backdoor way to do something really slickly behind the scenes , but when it comes to making things more configurable and more responsive to an individual 's needs , more able to help them finish their work faster , aside from a few exceptions...most of us completely miss the boat .
You are n't going to budge that rock unless you can make a bigger rock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you think people who don't do software for a living would give up something that works?
They don't have any real emotional ties to philosophy around software.
And honestly, they couldn't care less how much the company pays for it, as long as it works and they don't have to tinker with it or worry about a lot of outages.
To them, Microsoft isn't "evil", it's just this company that makes this thing they use and don't think twice about.
These are people who are more concerned about getting the right customers, keeping those customers, their families, their bosses, getting a report out by tomorrow...they frequently don't want to risk change if change doesn't appear to be needed.
The bottom line is this:  The only way you're ever going to make inroads into that is to add features and sell those features as something people will absolutely require.
They're used to how they save and deal with files...they couldn't care less if it's stored on the "cloud", and a whole lot of them aren't sure about the security of that because they don't understand network security.
They feel more secure about things being on a thumb drive in their pocket, unconnected to anything (until they spyware it up when they hook it to their kid's computer).
You have to make real features that save people lots of time.
And it's hard.
Microsoft had a 20 year head start on Google Apps.
The best people are able to do is to imitate and offer something for free.
Free is easy to see for an admin, but selling free to people who livelihood isn't saving money on infrastructure, but is actually getting things done without outages, takes something that is worth the risk.
I haven't seen a whole lot of risk taking lately by a lot of the "non-Microsoft" community, and it really hurts me to say that.
We think a risk is a sneaky backdoor way to do something really slickly behind the scenes, but when it comes to making things more configurable and more responsive to an individual's needs, more able to help them finish their work faster, aside from a few exceptions...most of us completely miss the boat.
You aren't going to budge that rock unless you can make a bigger rock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667797</id>
	<title>Missing the point...</title>
	<author>FlyingGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247418300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the typical rantings of the vast majority of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.'rs this is NOT about an e-mail system.</p><p>What this IS about is integration.   Love it or hate it, Exchange / Outlook are tightly integrated into the entire office product line.  The API's ( for better or worse ) are there to make an entire ecosystem of applications work together.  Your data is in Access?  It is extraordinary simple to create a notification system for events that are built into your database, it is all just there, it just works.</p><p>Yes this is why it is insanely easy to exploit it, but it is what makes a business process run.  Sorry you don't get that with Oo or any of the rest of them.</p><p>Exchange servers are notoriously flaky, GroupWise from Novell is rock fucking solid but their API's in their present form just suck and I have been a devote' of the <b>Big Red Box</b> or what seems like a lifetime.</p><p>Until something with this kind of functionality comes along to the open source world, then it will continue to be a curiosity and no amount of proclaiming that "I can do the same thing with 14 bash scripts a couple of Perl scripts and some python connected to a Ruby app" will sway anyone.</p><p>I am not saying it is good, I am simply saying it is reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the typical rantings of the vast majority of / .
'rs this is NOT about an e-mail system.What this IS about is integration .
Love it or hate it , Exchange / Outlook are tightly integrated into the entire office product line .
The API 's ( for better or worse ) are there to make an entire ecosystem of applications work together .
Your data is in Access ?
It is extraordinary simple to create a notification system for events that are built into your database , it is all just there , it just works.Yes this is why it is insanely easy to exploit it , but it is what makes a business process run .
Sorry you do n't get that with Oo or any of the rest of them.Exchange servers are notoriously flaky , GroupWise from Novell is rock fucking solid but their API 's in their present form just suck and I have been a devote ' of the Big Red Box or what seems like a lifetime.Until something with this kind of functionality comes along to the open source world , then it will continue to be a curiosity and no amount of proclaiming that " I can do the same thing with 14 bash scripts a couple of Perl scripts and some python connected to a Ruby app " will sway anyone.I am not saying it is good , I am simply saying it is reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the typical rantings of the vast majority of /.
'rs this is NOT about an e-mail system.What this IS about is integration.
Love it or hate it, Exchange / Outlook are tightly integrated into the entire office product line.
The API's ( for better or worse ) are there to make an entire ecosystem of applications work together.
Your data is in Access?
It is extraordinary simple to create a notification system for events that are built into your database, it is all just there, it just works.Yes this is why it is insanely easy to exploit it, but it is what makes a business process run.
Sorry you don't get that with Oo or any of the rest of them.Exchange servers are notoriously flaky, GroupWise from Novell is rock fucking solid but their API's in their present form just suck and I have been a devote' of the Big Red Box or what seems like a lifetime.Until something with this kind of functionality comes along to the open source world, then it will continue to be a curiosity and no amount of proclaiming that "I can do the same thing with 14 bash scripts a couple of Perl scripts and some python connected to a Ruby app" will sway anyone.I am not saying it is good, I am simply saying it is reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669237</id>
	<title>Re:The real problem is</title>
	<author>miknix</author>
	<datestamp>1247431740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google doesn't have Clippy!!!! Who wants a integrated solution without clippy?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't have Clippy ! ! ! !
Who wants a integrated solution without clippy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't have Clippy!!!!
Who wants a integrated solution without clippy?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28678045</id>
	<title>Re:Market it to Notes users</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247505840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They'll change in a heartbeat -- anything<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. Anything! to get away from Notes.</p></div><p>We did. And as much as it sucks, it's still an improvement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll change in a heartbeat -- anything .. Anything ! to get away from Notes.We did .
And as much as it sucks , it 's still an improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll change in a heartbeat -- anything .. Anything! to get away from Notes.We did.
And as much as it sucks, it's still an improvement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670923</id>
	<title>Google supports Outlook</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247403060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google Apps emulates an Exchange server.  That's also how the iPhone and Nokia phones synchronize.</p><p>So, you don't have to give up Outlook in order to use Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Apps emulates an Exchange server .
That 's also how the iPhone and Nokia phones synchronize.So , you do n't have to give up Outlook in order to use Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Apps emulates an Exchange server.
That's also how the iPhone and Nokia phones synchronize.So, you don't have to give up Outlook in order to use Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667551</id>
	<title>Tried getting away, but eventually gave in</title>
	<author>brainee28</author>
	<datestamp>1247416500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wanted to get away from Exchange. So I put in HP Openmail (Samsung Contact). That works for a few years until my users crashed my server (management refused to allow me to place limits on mailboxes, so this is what happens). After the crash, I put up a Postfix IMAP server and used Mozilla Thunderbird. What I found was that even though my users essentially use the email portions of Outlook and not the other collaborative features (some use the Contacts and Calendars, but not with any critical data), they still wanted Outlook. Daily I would hear complaints about how they hated using Mozilla, and eventually, we put Exchange 2007 and Outlook back in.<br><br>I think what happened is that many companies put in Exchange without understanding whether or not their company would really use all the collaborative features with Outlook. I'm willing to be many of them only really use the email portions, like mine does. Had my company started out with using just a simple POP3/IMAP server, then we might be using something like Google right now. But because we started out with the "defacto" standard, we setup the wrong expectation. This is what will be tough for Google; trying to get existing users to switch.<br><br>I agree that the Outlook plugin was probably not the best thing Google did, but it may be the only way Google can start transitioning people over to their services.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wanted to get away from Exchange .
So I put in HP Openmail ( Samsung Contact ) .
That works for a few years until my users crashed my server ( management refused to allow me to place limits on mailboxes , so this is what happens ) .
After the crash , I put up a Postfix IMAP server and used Mozilla Thunderbird .
What I found was that even though my users essentially use the email portions of Outlook and not the other collaborative features ( some use the Contacts and Calendars , but not with any critical data ) , they still wanted Outlook .
Daily I would hear complaints about how they hated using Mozilla , and eventually , we put Exchange 2007 and Outlook back in.I think what happened is that many companies put in Exchange without understanding whether or not their company would really use all the collaborative features with Outlook .
I 'm willing to be many of them only really use the email portions , like mine does .
Had my company started out with using just a simple POP3/IMAP server , then we might be using something like Google right now .
But because we started out with the " defacto " standard , we setup the wrong expectation .
This is what will be tough for Google ; trying to get existing users to switch.I agree that the Outlook plugin was probably not the best thing Google did , but it may be the only way Google can start transitioning people over to their services .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wanted to get away from Exchange.
So I put in HP Openmail (Samsung Contact).
That works for a few years until my users crashed my server (management refused to allow me to place limits on mailboxes, so this is what happens).
After the crash, I put up a Postfix IMAP server and used Mozilla Thunderbird.
What I found was that even though my users essentially use the email portions of Outlook and not the other collaborative features (some use the Contacts and Calendars, but not with any critical data), they still wanted Outlook.
Daily I would hear complaints about how they hated using Mozilla, and eventually, we put Exchange 2007 and Outlook back in.I think what happened is that many companies put in Exchange without understanding whether or not their company would really use all the collaborative features with Outlook.
I'm willing to be many of them only really use the email portions, like mine does.
Had my company started out with using just a simple POP3/IMAP server, then we might be using something like Google right now.
But because we started out with the "defacto" standard, we setup the wrong expectation.
This is what will be tough for Google; trying to get existing users to switch.I agree that the Outlook plugin was probably not the best thing Google did, but it may be the only way Google can start transitioning people over to their services.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673187</id>
	<title>Re:Too much in too little time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247428560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google doesn't seem to have a larger view of what they want to do with their technical talent. This is going to be their downfall in the long run as the advertisement-based profit stream slowly dries up.</p></div><p>Yes, but those kids sure look like they are having fun!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google does n't seem to have a larger view of what they want to do with their technical talent .
This is going to be their downfall in the long run as the advertisement-based profit stream slowly dries up.Yes , but those kids sure look like they are having fun !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google doesn't seem to have a larger view of what they want to do with their technical talent.
This is going to be their downfall in the long run as the advertisement-based profit stream slowly dries up.Yes, but those kids sure look like they are having fun!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667803</id>
	<title>Re:Google looking ahead to Wave of future</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247418300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So they are catching up to what MS offered almost 7 years ago<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Maybe it'll catch on with Google, they're good at seeing the future.  To me however, wave is nothing but a bunch of Hot air and an indication that Google is starting to get too arrogant and MS like for my tastes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So they are catching up to what MS offered almost 7 years ago ... Maybe it 'll catch on with Google , they 're good at seeing the future .
To me however , wave is nothing but a bunch of Hot air and an indication that Google is starting to get too arrogant and MS like for my tastes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they are catching up to what MS offered almost 7 years ago ...  Maybe it'll catch on with Google, they're good at seeing the future.
To me however, wave is nothing but a bunch of Hot air and an indication that Google is starting to get too arrogant and MS like for my tastes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671645</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247409720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not quite. Microsoft is rarely the first to do anything. Spreading quickly is important, though, and one of the quickest ways to spread is to bundle your product with something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not quite .
Microsoft is rarely the first to do anything .
Spreading quickly is important , though , and one of the quickest ways to spread is to bundle your product with something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not quite.
Microsoft is rarely the first to do anything.
Spreading quickly is important, though, and one of the quickest ways to spread is to bundle your product with something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667575</id>
	<title>Re:Secrecy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247416680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i><br>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email. There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google.<br></i><br>How about the internet connection that feeds your email, are companies willing to trust an external company for that?  If you're paranoid, there's a ton of people you could be worried about if you lack trust.</p><p>The truth is the world is built on trust.  I really think most companies couldn't care less about trusting email to an external company.  Anyone on Exchange is ALREADY trusting Microsoft with their email infra-structure.  Is it really that different trusting Google?</p><p>No, I really do think this is about people losing Outlook.  I seriously don't understand it, since Outlook is about the worst program I've ever had to avoid using.  There's a certain segment of the population that are just dinosaurs and refuse any kind of change once it's put upon them.  If those people have any power within a company, they can easily kill any move to replace Outlook with something else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more about letting another company handle your company 's email .
There is so much critical information about a company in their email , why would they trust it to any external company , even if it is Google.How about the internet connection that feeds your email , are companies willing to trust an external company for that ?
If you 're paranoid , there 's a ton of people you could be worried about if you lack trust.The truth is the world is built on trust .
I really think most companies could n't care less about trusting email to an external company .
Anyone on Exchange is ALREADY trusting Microsoft with their email infra-structure .
Is it really that different trusting Google ? No , I really do think this is about people losing Outlook .
I seriously do n't understand it , since Outlook is about the worst program I 've ever had to avoid using .
There 's a certain segment of the population that are just dinosaurs and refuse any kind of change once it 's put upon them .
If those people have any power within a company , they can easily kill any move to replace Outlook with something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email.
There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google.How about the internet connection that feeds your email, are companies willing to trust an external company for that?
If you're paranoid, there's a ton of people you could be worried about if you lack trust.The truth is the world is built on trust.
I really think most companies couldn't care less about trusting email to an external company.
Anyone on Exchange is ALREADY trusting Microsoft with their email infra-structure.
Is it really that different trusting Google?No, I really do think this is about people losing Outlook.
I seriously don't understand it, since Outlook is about the worst program I've ever had to avoid using.
There's a certain segment of the population that are just dinosaurs and refuse any kind of change once it's put upon them.
If those people have any power within a company, they can easily kill any move to replace Outlook with something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667393</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Threni</author>
	<datestamp>1247414880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Outlook at work and it's shit.  Searching email is really slow, and you can sense all the bloat as you do anything - the options I want are always hidden somewhere.  I used google desktop for a while and amused myself with how fast it was finding emails and files, but in the end I gave up because of limits on how many files it indexes (why is there a limit?), and because it (twice) caused my PC to slow down unusably.  Also, I had to fiddle with the registry to make it index more file types.   Then again, you have to do that sort of thing with Windows to get it to index files.  Why is it apparently so hard to know what's on your own, local hard drive?   I don't get it. I have the CPU and disk space for indexes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Outlook at work and it 's shit .
Searching email is really slow , and you can sense all the bloat as you do anything - the options I want are always hidden somewhere .
I used google desktop for a while and amused myself with how fast it was finding emails and files , but in the end I gave up because of limits on how many files it indexes ( why is there a limit ?
) , and because it ( twice ) caused my PC to slow down unusably .
Also , I had to fiddle with the registry to make it index more file types .
Then again , you have to do that sort of thing with Windows to get it to index files .
Why is it apparently so hard to know what 's on your own , local hard drive ?
I do n't get it .
I have the CPU and disk space for indexes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Outlook at work and it's shit.
Searching email is really slow, and you can sense all the bloat as you do anything - the options I want are always hidden somewhere.
I used google desktop for a while and amused myself with how fast it was finding emails and files, but in the end I gave up because of limits on how many files it indexes (why is there a limit?
), and because it (twice) caused my PC to slow down unusably.
Also, I had to fiddle with the registry to make it index more file types.
Then again, you have to do that sort of thing with Windows to get it to index files.
Why is it apparently so hard to know what's on your own, local hard drive?
I don't get it.
I have the CPU and disk space for indexes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668645</id>
	<title>Worse than Windows dominance</title>
	<author>RomulusNR</author>
	<datestamp>1247426700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is Outlook/Exchange dominance. Businesses use Exchange like it's the only mail/appointment system that exists and simply no third-party apps really provide all that Outlook does (evolution-exchange-server is barely passable). As a result, Outlook/Exchange dependency is a big barrier to Linux workplace desktop penetration, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is Outlook/Exchange dominance .
Businesses use Exchange like it 's the only mail/appointment system that exists and simply no third-party apps really provide all that Outlook does ( evolution-exchange-server is barely passable ) .
As a result , Outlook/Exchange dependency is a big barrier to Linux workplace desktop penetration , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is Outlook/Exchange dominance.
Businesses use Exchange like it's the only mail/appointment system that exists and simply no third-party apps really provide all that Outlook does (evolution-exchange-server is barely passable).
As a result, Outlook/Exchange dependency is a big barrier to Linux workplace desktop penetration, too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667527</id>
	<title>Re:Too much in too little time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247416200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow.
</p><p>I cannot believe that you loaded that metaphorical shotgun with spaghetti and fired it at the wall.
</p><p>Now clean up your metaphorical mess and don't do that again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
I can not believe that you loaded that metaphorical shotgun with spaghetti and fired it at the wall .
Now clean up your metaphorical mess and do n't do that again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
I cannot believe that you loaded that metaphorical shotgun with spaghetti and fired it at the wall.
Now clean up your metaphorical mess and don't do that again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667585</id>
	<title>Happened here with a different solution</title>
	<author>Hamfist</author>
	<datestamp>1247416740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We migrated to in-house Zimbra from a simple sendmail server (500 accounts), which has worked exceptionally well.  We had quite a bit of pushback from die-hard Outlook people.   We adopted a policy that all new hires would get Zimbra and a business case would have to be presented to get Outlook for that user.  We also dont support any of the sharing features via Outlook, and all new training material is for Zimbra and not Outlook.  We also chose a few high profile individuals and helped them become more efficient with Zimbra to help spead the word.  We still have about 50\% of the user base on Outlook, POPing off of Zimbra.  We expect this number to dwindle as our users decide to start leveraging sharing.</p><p>A mixed mode can be supported, and its probably the only way to move away from a deeply entrenched tech like Outlook.  Baby steps are required.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We migrated to in-house Zimbra from a simple sendmail server ( 500 accounts ) , which has worked exceptionally well .
We had quite a bit of pushback from die-hard Outlook people .
We adopted a policy that all new hires would get Zimbra and a business case would have to be presented to get Outlook for that user .
We also dont support any of the sharing features via Outlook , and all new training material is for Zimbra and not Outlook .
We also chose a few high profile individuals and helped them become more efficient with Zimbra to help spead the word .
We still have about 50 \ % of the user base on Outlook , POPing off of Zimbra .
We expect this number to dwindle as our users decide to start leveraging sharing.A mixed mode can be supported , and its probably the only way to move away from a deeply entrenched tech like Outlook .
Baby steps are required .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We migrated to in-house Zimbra from a simple sendmail server (500 accounts), which has worked exceptionally well.
We had quite a bit of pushback from die-hard Outlook people.
We adopted a policy that all new hires would get Zimbra and a business case would have to be presented to get Outlook for that user.
We also dont support any of the sharing features via Outlook, and all new training material is for Zimbra and not Outlook.
We also chose a few high profile individuals and helped them become more efficient with Zimbra to help spead the word.
We still have about 50\% of the user base on Outlook, POPing off of Zimbra.
We expect this number to dwindle as our users decide to start leveraging sharing.A mixed mode can be supported, and its probably the only way to move away from a deeply entrenched tech like Outlook.
Baby steps are required.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668131</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247421240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly. Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.</p></div><p>Yeah, just like all those MP3 players that came out before the iPod...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the bottom line is , if you are coming out with a new product , you do n't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly .
Then it really does n't matter much what comes later , you 're in the money.Yeah , just like all those MP3 players that came out before the iPod.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly.
Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.Yeah, just like all those MP3 players that came out before the iPod...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667449</id>
	<title>Re:Secrecy</title>
	<author>Jahava</author>
	<datestamp>1247415540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. While cloud-based applications and communications provide some extremely desirable features, a company's internal communications are its lifeblood. While good arguments can be made to trust this to Google's hosting services, good arguments can be made against it as well.</p><p>What Google really should do is provide an appliance - a suite of servers pre-loaded with Google Apps, GMail, etc. - that companies can buy or lease from them and integrate internally. They <a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/index.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">already do this</a> [google.com] for many technologies including <a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/search/gsa.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Search</a> [google.com] and <a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/earthmaps/earth\_enterprise.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Earth</a> [google.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
While cloud-based applications and communications provide some extremely desirable features , a company 's internal communications are its lifeblood .
While good arguments can be made to trust this to Google 's hosting services , good arguments can be made against it as well.What Google really should do is provide an appliance - a suite of servers pre-loaded with Google Apps , GMail , etc .
- that companies can buy or lease from them and integrate internally .
They already do this [ google.com ] for many technologies including Google Search [ google.com ] and Google Earth [ google.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
While cloud-based applications and communications provide some extremely desirable features, a company's internal communications are its lifeblood.
While good arguments can be made to trust this to Google's hosting services, good arguments can be made against it as well.What Google really should do is provide an appliance - a suite of servers pre-loaded with Google Apps, GMail, etc.
- that companies can buy or lease from them and integrate internally.
They already do this [google.com] for many technologies including Google Search [google.com] and Google Earth [google.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669329</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Shamenaught</author>
	<datestamp>1247389500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah, I had forgotten google were offering wave for people to run on their own servers. If someone can modify Wave to act as an in-place replacement for an exchange server (converting emails into waves and so on) then I think a lot of people might be sold on it. Whether storing data on Google's servers is a real threat or not, it certainly strikes me that people on here perceive it as a threat. As perceived threats are the real barrier to adoption, removing it might tip the balance for some companies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , I had forgotten google were offering wave for people to run on their own servers .
If someone can modify Wave to act as an in-place replacement for an exchange server ( converting emails into waves and so on ) then I think a lot of people might be sold on it .
Whether storing data on Google 's servers is a real threat or not , it certainly strikes me that people on here perceive it as a threat .
As perceived threats are the real barrier to adoption , removing it might tip the balance for some companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, I had forgotten google were offering wave for people to run on their own servers.
If someone can modify Wave to act as an in-place replacement for an exchange server (converting emails into waves and so on) then I think a lot of people might be sold on it.
Whether storing data on Google's servers is a real threat or not, it certainly strikes me that people on here perceive it as a threat.
As perceived threats are the real barrier to adoption, removing it might tip the balance for some companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667331</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft may just fix this themselves</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247414220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This argument get's overused and is not actually that big a deal. The ribbon menustyle does not change the logical interface, just the (menu) structure where you find them. All the user actions remain the same, they are just located elsewhere. And since Office menus are so cluttered with all the features, ribbon is actually much easier especially if you're not a poweruser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This argument get 's overused and is not actually that big a deal .
The ribbon menustyle does not change the logical interface , just the ( menu ) structure where you find them .
All the user actions remain the same , they are just located elsewhere .
And since Office menus are so cluttered with all the features , ribbon is actually much easier especially if you 're not a poweruser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This argument get's overused and is not actually that big a deal.
The ribbon menustyle does not change the logical interface, just the (menu) structure where you find them.
All the user actions remain the same, they are just located elsewhere.
And since Office menus are so cluttered with all the features, ribbon is actually much easier especially if you're not a poweruser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668519</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247425500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.</i> </p><p>Microsoft and Apple both began with the stand-alone PC - and both moved as quickly as possible  - and as far as possible - beyond the hobbyist - market.</p><p>Apple sells an upscale urban lifestyle. Microsoft solid middle class values. It's no coincidence that Microsoft has a solid anchorage in business and the Mac in the arts.</p><p>The "proper OS" is defined by the needs and values of its user.</p><p>The Windows desktop is multicore and increasingly 64 bit. The OS Vista today and Win 7 tomorrow.</p><p> Combined market share about 25\% of the consumer desktop.</p><p> The geek will rant and rave but the core tech is solid. The OEM systems full-featured and very affordable.</p><p>Linux is the generic netbook with 512 MB of RAM that sells for $250-$300  and chokes when you leave two tabs open in Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system .
Microsoft and Apple both began with the stand-alone PC - and both moved as quickly as possible - and as far as possible - beyond the hobbyist - market.Apple sells an upscale urban lifestyle .
Microsoft solid middle class values .
It 's no coincidence that Microsoft has a solid anchorage in business and the Mac in the arts.The " proper OS " is defined by the needs and values of its user.The Windows desktop is multicore and increasingly 64 bit .
The OS Vista today and Win 7 tomorrow .
Combined market share about 25 \ % of the consumer desktop .
The geek will rant and rave but the core tech is solid .
The OEM systems full-featured and very affordable.Linux is the generic netbook with 512 MB of RAM that sells for $ 250- $ 300 and chokes when you leave two tabs open in Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.
Microsoft and Apple both began with the stand-alone PC - and both moved as quickly as possible  - and as far as possible - beyond the hobbyist - market.Apple sells an upscale urban lifestyle.
Microsoft solid middle class values.
It's no coincidence that Microsoft has a solid anchorage in business and the Mac in the arts.The "proper OS" is defined by the needs and values of its user.The Windows desktop is multicore and increasingly 64 bit.
The OS Vista today and Win 7 tomorrow.
Combined market share about 25\% of the consumer desktop.
The geek will rant and rave but the core tech is solid.
The OEM systems full-featured and very affordable.Linux is the generic netbook with 512 MB of RAM that sells for $250-$300  and chokes when you leave two tabs open in Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667937</id>
	<title>Re:Give me an alternative...</title>
	<author>fangorious</author>
	<datestamp>1247419740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Configure an IMAP account in Outlook, then you can drag all those pst archived emails to the IMAP account. Then you can use whatever other IMAP client you like to store in a different archival format.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Configure an IMAP account in Outlook , then you can drag all those pst archived emails to the IMAP account .
Then you can use whatever other IMAP client you like to store in a different archival format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Configure an IMAP account in Outlook, then you can drag all those pst archived emails to the IMAP account.
Then you can use whatever other IMAP client you like to store in a different archival format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673413</id>
	<title>Job Security</title>
	<author>deanston</author>
	<datestamp>1247518260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>1). People debate the merits of different email systems as if none of their mail traffic ever goes outside of their firewall. The idea of internal message never leaking out is an illusion. 2). Company email maintenance is a big part of IT support. No manager will volunteer to give up that budget and personnel and lost of IT jobs. It's not user inertia. It is in-house IT inertia. 3) I haven't used MS Office for 3 years. Nobody in my office knows the difference in documents I create. 4) I've found Gmail faster and more responsive and have better uptime than my company's own corporate mail. 4) Since maintaining email and email data has become so expensive, my organization has severely limited the server storage capacity of each user - much less than Gmail. To ensure you do not lose your important messages and data our IT recommend you BACK UP THE MESSAGES ON YOUR OWN IN YOUR PC to save server room. Are you kidding me? Is this 2009 or 1999? Forget data security and backup issue on my desktop for a minute. It is not worth my time and I think it is a ridiculous use of my time at my hourly rate when there are other project priorities and deadlines. 5) Using email as part of your project workflow is just plain wrong. Any important notes and work orders should be in a real project management system. 6) Outlook is the principle carrier of viruses. 7) If your organization cannot keep an Internet line up 99.99\% of the time in this day and age, you've got bigger underlying fundamental problems than just email and local apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) .
People debate the merits of different email systems as if none of their mail traffic ever goes outside of their firewall .
The idea of internal message never leaking out is an illusion .
2 ) . Company email maintenance is a big part of IT support .
No manager will volunteer to give up that budget and personnel and lost of IT jobs .
It 's not user inertia .
It is in-house IT inertia .
3 ) I have n't used MS Office for 3 years .
Nobody in my office knows the difference in documents I create .
4 ) I 've found Gmail faster and more responsive and have better uptime than my company 's own corporate mail .
4 ) Since maintaining email and email data has become so expensive , my organization has severely limited the server storage capacity of each user - much less than Gmail .
To ensure you do not lose your important messages and data our IT recommend you BACK UP THE MESSAGES ON YOUR OWN IN YOUR PC to save server room .
Are you kidding me ?
Is this 2009 or 1999 ?
Forget data security and backup issue on my desktop for a minute .
It is not worth my time and I think it is a ridiculous use of my time at my hourly rate when there are other project priorities and deadlines .
5 ) Using email as part of your project workflow is just plain wrong .
Any important notes and work orders should be in a real project management system .
6 ) Outlook is the principle carrier of viruses .
7 ) If your organization can not keep an Internet line up 99.99 \ % of the time in this day and age , you 've got bigger underlying fundamental problems than just email and local apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1).
People debate the merits of different email systems as if none of their mail traffic ever goes outside of their firewall.
The idea of internal message never leaking out is an illusion.
2). Company email maintenance is a big part of IT support.
No manager will volunteer to give up that budget and personnel and lost of IT jobs.
It's not user inertia.
It is in-house IT inertia.
3) I haven't used MS Office for 3 years.
Nobody in my office knows the difference in documents I create.
4) I've found Gmail faster and more responsive and have better uptime than my company's own corporate mail.
4) Since maintaining email and email data has become so expensive, my organization has severely limited the server storage capacity of each user - much less than Gmail.
To ensure you do not lose your important messages and data our IT recommend you BACK UP THE MESSAGES ON YOUR OWN IN YOUR PC to save server room.
Are you kidding me?
Is this 2009 or 1999?
Forget data security and backup issue on my desktop for a minute.
It is not worth my time and I think it is a ridiculous use of my time at my hourly rate when there are other project priorities and deadlines.
5) Using email as part of your project workflow is just plain wrong.
Any important notes and work orders should be in a real project management system.
6) Outlook is the principle carrier of viruses.
7) If your organization cannot keep an Internet line up 99.99\% of the time in this day and age, you've got bigger underlying fundamental problems than just email and local apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667707</id>
	<title>GMail is a joke compared to Outlook</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247417580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm the lead developer for a product that is currently available only for Outlook (shameless plug/advertisement: <a href="http://www.lettermark.com/" title="lettermark.com">http://www.lettermark.com/</a> [lettermark.com] )</p><p>The next major release which of the system, which now supports Thunderbird, Gmail, Yahoo mail, Apple Mail, and of course Outlook is in the early alpha stages and has been given to several of our larger clients.  We've worked with these clients through their Outlook upgrades, complaints and joys.</p><p>I can tell you that none of them will ever switch to Gmail as it stands.  Theres a good chance none of them will switch off Outlook any time soon, period.</p><p>Its not JUST about the company data sitting somewhere else, that really doesn't bother a lot of companies as shocking as it sounds.</p><p>The problem?  Any of the customers we have, and pretty much ALL of the customers we have that are over 100 seats ALL have other products besides ours that integrate with Outlook to make their email part of a larger workflow.  These people track sales, customer relations, trouble tickets, orders, you name it, ALL via Outlook and most of the time using Exchange so that the data can nicely be shared, calendars can be viewed, ect.</p><p>Some of this you can do with GMail, but its a pain in the ass.  We also have use Google Apps for your Domain to test with.  Its not even close, and can't be until they open it up.  Yes, Outlook is far more open than GMail in its wettest dreams.</p><p>GMail doesn't let my random sales person app hit a button then thrown an entire wedding planning itinerary into an email to the customer, which is also stored in the sales system.</p><p>GMail doesn't let my random technical support person import the message into our issue tracking system.</p><p>GMail doesn't let me encrypt messages with personally identifiable information in it, which is required by law, regardless of whom it is sent to in a couple of states now.</p><p>In short, you may call it 'inertia' if by 'inertia' you mean a far more mature and feature rich product.  Otherwise it is simply, and I cringe as I type this, that Outlook is a far more useful tool than GMail.</p><p>I HAVE to deal with Outlook and Exchange, I know far too much about it.  I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT STAND IT.  The only reason we're supporting other email clients going forward is because I refuse to be forced to use Outlook for email, so I want a choice.  Fortunately, there are still large organizations that use things like Groupwise and Lotus Notes which allowed me a very nice business case for supporting more than just Outlook when I took the project over.</p><p>But if you think for a second there is a replacement for the Outlook/Exchange combination for a integrated solution of your typical business persons email/contacts/calendar then you're are completely out of touch with reality.  I REALLY REALLY wish there was, but there isn't.  And GMail isn't anything more than OWA, with less features and a better UI.  Its just missing far too many features and the ability for third party software to integrate with it for it to become a replacement for Outlook.  Not to mention the legal issues as to why companies really shouldn't be using GMail when customer data is being emailed.</p><p>I wish that someone out there would realize this and actually make real Thunderbird extensions to make it on par with the Outlook, but it doesn't exist.  I've used all the OSS alternatives, if you think they are equal, you haven't used one of the two things you are comparing.  It wouldn't even freaking be hard, all you need is some damn plugins that use IMAP folders for storing things.  Do it on something like Cyrus IMAP which has proper notify support and it really could be just as good if not better than exchange!  I'd do it myself if I wasn't so overloaded aleady.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the lead developer for a product that is currently available only for Outlook ( shameless plug/advertisement : http : //www.lettermark.com/ [ lettermark.com ] ) The next major release which of the system , which now supports Thunderbird , Gmail , Yahoo mail , Apple Mail , and of course Outlook is in the early alpha stages and has been given to several of our larger clients .
We 've worked with these clients through their Outlook upgrades , complaints and joys.I can tell you that none of them will ever switch to Gmail as it stands .
Theres a good chance none of them will switch off Outlook any time soon , period.Its not JUST about the company data sitting somewhere else , that really does n't bother a lot of companies as shocking as it sounds.The problem ?
Any of the customers we have , and pretty much ALL of the customers we have that are over 100 seats ALL have other products besides ours that integrate with Outlook to make their email part of a larger workflow .
These people track sales , customer relations , trouble tickets , orders , you name it , ALL via Outlook and most of the time using Exchange so that the data can nicely be shared , calendars can be viewed , ect.Some of this you can do with GMail , but its a pain in the ass .
We also have use Google Apps for your Domain to test with .
Its not even close , and ca n't be until they open it up .
Yes , Outlook is far more open than GMail in its wettest dreams.GMail does n't let my random sales person app hit a button then thrown an entire wedding planning itinerary into an email to the customer , which is also stored in the sales system.GMail does n't let my random technical support person import the message into our issue tracking system.GMail does n't let me encrypt messages with personally identifiable information in it , which is required by law , regardless of whom it is sent to in a couple of states now.In short , you may call it 'inertia ' if by 'inertia ' you mean a far more mature and feature rich product .
Otherwise it is simply , and I cringe as I type this , that Outlook is a far more useful tool than GMail.I HAVE to deal with Outlook and Exchange , I know far too much about it .
I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT STAND IT .
The only reason we 're supporting other email clients going forward is because I refuse to be forced to use Outlook for email , so I want a choice .
Fortunately , there are still large organizations that use things like Groupwise and Lotus Notes which allowed me a very nice business case for supporting more than just Outlook when I took the project over.But if you think for a second there is a replacement for the Outlook/Exchange combination for a integrated solution of your typical business persons email/contacts/calendar then you 're are completely out of touch with reality .
I REALLY REALLY wish there was , but there is n't .
And GMail is n't anything more than OWA , with less features and a better UI .
Its just missing far too many features and the ability for third party software to integrate with it for it to become a replacement for Outlook .
Not to mention the legal issues as to why companies really should n't be using GMail when customer data is being emailed.I wish that someone out there would realize this and actually make real Thunderbird extensions to make it on par with the Outlook , but it does n't exist .
I 've used all the OSS alternatives , if you think they are equal , you have n't used one of the two things you are comparing .
It would n't even freaking be hard , all you need is some damn plugins that use IMAP folders for storing things .
Do it on something like Cyrus IMAP which has proper notify support and it really could be just as good if not better than exchange !
I 'd do it myself if I was n't so overloaded aleady .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the lead developer for a product that is currently available only for Outlook (shameless plug/advertisement: http://www.lettermark.com/ [lettermark.com] )The next major release which of the system, which now supports Thunderbird, Gmail, Yahoo mail, Apple Mail, and of course Outlook is in the early alpha stages and has been given to several of our larger clients.
We've worked with these clients through their Outlook upgrades, complaints and joys.I can tell you that none of them will ever switch to Gmail as it stands.
Theres a good chance none of them will switch off Outlook any time soon, period.Its not JUST about the company data sitting somewhere else, that really doesn't bother a lot of companies as shocking as it sounds.The problem?
Any of the customers we have, and pretty much ALL of the customers we have that are over 100 seats ALL have other products besides ours that integrate with Outlook to make their email part of a larger workflow.
These people track sales, customer relations, trouble tickets, orders, you name it, ALL via Outlook and most of the time using Exchange so that the data can nicely be shared, calendars can be viewed, ect.Some of this you can do with GMail, but its a pain in the ass.
We also have use Google Apps for your Domain to test with.
Its not even close, and can't be until they open it up.
Yes, Outlook is far more open than GMail in its wettest dreams.GMail doesn't let my random sales person app hit a button then thrown an entire wedding planning itinerary into an email to the customer, which is also stored in the sales system.GMail doesn't let my random technical support person import the message into our issue tracking system.GMail doesn't let me encrypt messages with personally identifiable information in it, which is required by law, regardless of whom it is sent to in a couple of states now.In short, you may call it 'inertia' if by 'inertia' you mean a far more mature and feature rich product.
Otherwise it is simply, and I cringe as I type this, that Outlook is a far more useful tool than GMail.I HAVE to deal with Outlook and Exchange, I know far too much about it.
I ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT STAND IT.
The only reason we're supporting other email clients going forward is because I refuse to be forced to use Outlook for email, so I want a choice.
Fortunately, there are still large organizations that use things like Groupwise and Lotus Notes which allowed me a very nice business case for supporting more than just Outlook when I took the project over.But if you think for a second there is a replacement for the Outlook/Exchange combination for a integrated solution of your typical business persons email/contacts/calendar then you're are completely out of touch with reality.
I REALLY REALLY wish there was, but there isn't.
And GMail isn't anything more than OWA, with less features and a better UI.
Its just missing far too many features and the ability for third party software to integrate with it for it to become a replacement for Outlook.
Not to mention the legal issues as to why companies really shouldn't be using GMail when customer data is being emailed.I wish that someone out there would realize this and actually make real Thunderbird extensions to make it on par with the Outlook, but it doesn't exist.
I've used all the OSS alternatives, if you think they are equal, you haven't used one of the two things you are comparing.
It wouldn't even freaking be hard, all you need is some damn plugins that use IMAP folders for storing things.
Do it on something like Cyrus IMAP which has proper notify support and it really could be just as good if not better than exchange!
I'd do it myself if I wasn't so overloaded aleady.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28675523</id>
	<title>Re:Give me an alternative...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247496780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the newer Outlook PST format (&gt;=2003), you can have your PSTs as large as you like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the newer Outlook PST format ( &gt; = 2003 ) , you can have your PSTs as large as you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the newer Outlook PST format (&gt;=2003), you can have your PSTs as large as you like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667817</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667611</id>
	<title>Re:Market it to Notes users</title>
	<author>TheLongshot</author>
	<datestamp>1247416920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Heh, we cheered at a previous company when we finally changed from Notes to Exchange for our company E-Mail.  It kept going for years because the man in charge liked the encryption functionality of Notes, apparently.  No matter that it was a PITA for the rest of us to use.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heh , we cheered at a previous company when we finally changed from Notes to Exchange for our company E-Mail .
It kept going for years because the man in charge liked the encryption functionality of Notes , apparently .
No matter that it was a PITA for the rest of us to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heh, we cheered at a previous company when we finally changed from Notes to Exchange for our company E-Mail.
It kept going for years because the man in charge liked the encryption functionality of Notes, apparently.
No matter that it was a PITA for the rest of us to use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667865</id>
	<title>Dead Wrong</title>
	<author>pleasegetreal</author>
	<datestamp>1247418900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The article is smoking crack on one point: It's not the *users* who are inertial. It's the  Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts (MCSE) who run their IT operations, who are deeply invested in all the crap they had to learn to keep Domain Controllers and Exchange Servers running.</p></div><p>The ignorance displayed in statements like this is astounding to me, but I guess any high school kid with a keyboard can comment here.</p><p>

Our IS department really wanted to go to Gmail and away from Outlook, but the USERS were the ones who would not switch.  Gmail has no nested folders for example, which was a deal killer by itself.  The integration of email, contacts, tasks and calendar in Outlook is light years ahead of the Google set of tools.  My mistake was underestimating the sophistication of the users.  Gmail is actually attractive to me as a CIO from a support and expense perspective, but it is a non-starter for heavy email users in a business of any size.  As far a reliability, our Exchange box has gone done zero times in the past two years, but Gmail has been down several times in the same period.  For those businesses that live and die by email, that fact is significant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is smoking crack on one point : It 's not the * users * who are inertial .
It 's the Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts ( MCSE ) who run their IT operations , who are deeply invested in all the crap they had to learn to keep Domain Controllers and Exchange Servers running.The ignorance displayed in statements like this is astounding to me , but I guess any high school kid with a keyboard can comment here .
Our IS department really wanted to go to Gmail and away from Outlook , but the USERS were the ones who would not switch .
Gmail has no nested folders for example , which was a deal killer by itself .
The integration of email , contacts , tasks and calendar in Outlook is light years ahead of the Google set of tools .
My mistake was underestimating the sophistication of the users .
Gmail is actually attractive to me as a CIO from a support and expense perspective , but it is a non-starter for heavy email users in a business of any size .
As far a reliability , our Exchange box has gone done zero times in the past two years , but Gmail has been down several times in the same period .
For those businesses that live and die by email , that fact is significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is smoking crack on one point: It's not the *users* who are inertial.
It's the  Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts (MCSE) who run their IT operations, who are deeply invested in all the crap they had to learn to keep Domain Controllers and Exchange Servers running.The ignorance displayed in statements like this is astounding to me, but I guess any high school kid with a keyboard can comment here.
Our IS department really wanted to go to Gmail and away from Outlook, but the USERS were the ones who would not switch.
Gmail has no nested folders for example, which was a deal killer by itself.
The integration of email, contacts, tasks and calendar in Outlook is light years ahead of the Google set of tools.
My mistake was underestimating the sophistication of the users.
Gmail is actually attractive to me as a CIO from a support and expense perspective, but it is a non-starter for heavy email users in a business of any size.
As far a reliability, our Exchange box has gone done zero times in the past two years, but Gmail has been down several times in the same period.
For those businesses that live and die by email, that fact is significant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668199</id>
	<title>Re:Not the *users* who are inertial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247421960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep pretending the users are being forced to use Outlook and don't like it - BUT, if you're going to do that, please don't join any F/OSS projects because you will do nothing to advance the state of the art.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep pretending the users are being forced to use Outlook and do n't like it - BUT , if you 're going to do that , please do n't join any F/OSS projects because you will do nothing to advance the state of the art .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep pretending the users are being forced to use Outlook and don't like it - BUT, if you're going to do that, please don't join any F/OSS projects because you will do nothing to advance the state of the art.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667441</id>
	<title>Clearly these lusers are clueless</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1247415480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, they couldn't possibly choose Outlook over Google Apps because they might prefer it or because Outlook may be more effective for their needs.  Instead of blaming the users for your failure perhaps Google would be better off looking inwards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , they could n't possibly choose Outlook over Google Apps because they might prefer it or because Outlook may be more effective for their needs .
Instead of blaming the users for your failure perhaps Google would be better off looking inwards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, they couldn't possibly choose Outlook over Google Apps because they might prefer it or because Outlook may be more effective for their needs.
Instead of blaming the users for your failure perhaps Google would be better off looking inwards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667569</id>
	<title>Re:Secrecy</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1247416560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email.</p></div><p>Yeah! That would be like letting another company handle your company's finances. Down with banks and their hideously invasive checking accounts and credit cards!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more about letting another company handle your company 's email.Yeah !
That would be like letting another company handle your company 's finances .
Down with banks and their hideously invasive checking accounts and credit cards !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email.Yeah!
That would be like letting another company handle your company's finances.
Down with banks and their hideously invasive checking accounts and credit cards!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667465</id>
	<title>You can do the same with Outlook</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247415720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can just outsource Exchange and pay for the IT service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can just outsource Exchange and pay for the IT service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can just outsource Exchange and pay for the IT service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667451</id>
	<title>Convert them!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247415540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One at a time.</p><p>We have 800 users where I work and I use Evolution with our exchange server, not only is it faster than outlook but it is more intuitive and does not have that stupid ribbon bar. So far I have converted about 25 users and the tide is turning. Outlook is still installed on their systems but it almost never gets used by the users whom I have converted. </p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>I am having similar success with OpenOffice. I am putting OpenOffice on our standard image and explain it as a disaster recovery tool. There have been many times when word will not open a corrupt document but OpenOffice will with a little formatting problems usually due to the corruption. In fact most users continue to use OpenOffice after their document is recovered because they seem to trust it better than Word which screws up their documents.</p><p>.<br>.<br>.</p><p>One PC/User at a time and the tide will turn....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One at a time.We have 800 users where I work and I use Evolution with our exchange server , not only is it faster than outlook but it is more intuitive and does not have that stupid ribbon bar .
So far I have converted about 25 users and the tide is turning .
Outlook is still installed on their systems but it almost never gets used by the users whom I have converted .
  I am having similar success with OpenOffice .
I am putting OpenOffice on our standard image and explain it as a disaster recovery tool .
There have been many times when word will not open a corrupt document but OpenOffice will with a little formatting problems usually due to the corruption .
In fact most users continue to use OpenOffice after their document is recovered because they seem to trust it better than Word which screws up their documents....One PC/User at a time and the tide will turn... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One at a time.We have 800 users where I work and I use Evolution with our exchange server, not only is it faster than outlook but it is more intuitive and does not have that stupid ribbon bar.
So far I have converted about 25 users and the tide is turning.
Outlook is still installed on their systems but it almost never gets used by the users whom I have converted.
  I am having similar success with OpenOffice.
I am putting OpenOffice on our standard image and explain it as a disaster recovery tool.
There have been many times when word will not open a corrupt document but OpenOffice will with a little formatting problems usually due to the corruption.
In fact most users continue to use OpenOffice after their document is recovered because they seem to trust it better than Word which screws up their documents....One PC/User at a time and the tide will turn....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668011</id>
	<title>Re:Secrecy</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1247420400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email. There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google. Also, I'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email. Outlook allows some backup of emails at the IT level of all company emails (included deleted ones).</p></div><p>The article is clearly talking about comparing things to Exchange server.<br>If you won't trust your email with another company, they won't be running Exchange since Microsoft (read: another company) makes that software.</p><p>There is no more trust from Google than currently with Microsoft for using a Google App Appliance.</p><p>You are saying businesses won't trust putting their email on a Google app server in the companies server farm, because that is somehow different from putting their email on an exchange server in the companies server farm?</p><p>Somehow using software from Google on your own hardware is trusting Google, yet using software from Microsoft on your own hardware is not trusting Microsoft?</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/enterprise/" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/enterprise/</a> [google.com]</p><p>If a company won't trust software from Google, unless they are just lying and being hypocrites, are already avoiding Exchange for the exact same reason.<br>If they ARE on Exchange server, they are already running Exchange in-house, so there is no difference in running Google Apps in-house as well.  Exactly nothing internal leaves the company in either case.</p><p>We're not talking about Google's free personal Gmail service only available online here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;}</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more about letting another company handle your company 's email .
There is so much critical information about a company in their email , why would they trust it to any external company , even if it is Google .
Also , I 'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email .
Outlook allows some backup of emails at the IT level of all company emails ( included deleted ones ) .The article is clearly talking about comparing things to Exchange server.If you wo n't trust your email with another company , they wo n't be running Exchange since Microsoft ( read : another company ) makes that software.There is no more trust from Google than currently with Microsoft for using a Google App Appliance.You are saying businesses wo n't trust putting their email on a Google app server in the companies server farm , because that is somehow different from putting their email on an exchange server in the companies server farm ? Somehow using software from Google on your own hardware is trusting Google , yet using software from Microsoft on your own hardware is not trusting Microsoft ? http : //www.google.com/enterprise/ [ google.com ] If a company wo n't trust software from Google , unless they are just lying and being hypocrites , are already avoiding Exchange for the exact same reason.If they ARE on Exchange server , they are already running Exchange in-house , so there is no difference in running Google Apps in-house as well .
Exactly nothing internal leaves the company in either case.We 're not talking about Google 's free personal Gmail service only available online here ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email.
There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google.
Also, I'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email.
Outlook allows some backup of emails at the IT level of all company emails (included deleted ones).The article is clearly talking about comparing things to Exchange server.If you won't trust your email with another company, they won't be running Exchange since Microsoft (read: another company) makes that software.There is no more trust from Google than currently with Microsoft for using a Google App Appliance.You are saying businesses won't trust putting their email on a Google app server in the companies server farm, because that is somehow different from putting their email on an exchange server in the companies server farm?Somehow using software from Google on your own hardware is trusting Google, yet using software from Microsoft on your own hardware is not trusting Microsoft?http://www.google.com/enterprise/ [google.com]If a company won't trust software from Google, unless they are just lying and being hypocrites, are already avoiding Exchange for the exact same reason.If they ARE on Exchange server, they are already running Exchange in-house, so there is no difference in running Google Apps in-house as well.
Exactly nothing internal leaves the company in either case.We're not talking about Google's free personal Gmail service only available online here ;}
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667543</id>
	<title>A better tool</title>
	<author>jamesl</author>
	<datestamp>1247416380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... employees unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiar.</i></p><p>Perhaps it's due to employees unwillingness to give up a tool that works so well. And which gets better with every new release.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... employees unwillingness to give up a tool that 's so familiar.Perhaps it 's due to employees unwillingness to give up a tool that works so well .
And which gets better with every new release .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... employees unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiar.Perhaps it's due to employees unwillingness to give up a tool that works so well.
And which gets better with every new release.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671251</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>fluffernutter</author>
	<datestamp>1247406180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I'm basically a linux guy but I have to play devil's advocate here.  Say this guy is named Harry.<br> <br>
Scenario 1:  Harry tries to install Windows based business server with apps for months and cannot do it.<br>
What his co-workers say:  Poor Harry, that machine will just not cooperate with him.  Stupid windows.<br> <br>
Scenario 2: Harry tries to install linux server with adapted linux app and it takes him weeks.<br>
What his co-workers say: Harry thinks he's a tech bigshot and used linux and now he's having trouble.  What an idiot.<br> <br>Everyone who works in an average workplace knows this is true.  I'd rather take scenario 1 myself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 'm basically a linux guy but I have to play devil 's advocate here .
Say this guy is named Harry .
Scenario 1 : Harry tries to install Windows based business server with apps for months and can not do it .
What his co-workers say : Poor Harry , that machine will just not cooperate with him .
Stupid windows .
Scenario 2 : Harry tries to install linux server with adapted linux app and it takes him weeks .
What his co-workers say : Harry thinks he 's a tech bigshot and used linux and now he 's having trouble .
What an idiot .
Everyone who works in an average workplace knows this is true .
I 'd rather take scenario 1 myself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I'm basically a linux guy but I have to play devil's advocate here.
Say this guy is named Harry.
Scenario 1:  Harry tries to install Windows based business server with apps for months and cannot do it.
What his co-workers say:  Poor Harry, that machine will just not cooperate with him.
Stupid windows.
Scenario 2: Harry tries to install linux server with adapted linux app and it takes him weeks.
What his co-workers say: Harry thinks he's a tech bigshot and used linux and now he's having trouble.
What an idiot.
Everyone who works in an average workplace knows this is true.
I'd rather take scenario 1 myself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672307</id>
	<title>Are you really that much of a zealot?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247416320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>What are you talking about, wrt W7 dialogs being so drastically superior to "Linux's file dialogs"?</i></p><p>1) Libraries.<br>2) Ability to do file management inside the file dialog.<br>3) Workmanship.</p><p><i>Is there something significant I'm missing here, or are you just blowing smoke? The file dialog in W7 is not only almost identical to what KDE has had since early 2002 (no, I'm not claiming they 'stole' anything), but it's also a dialog lacking the vast majority of the function that KDE has in its dialog.</i></p><p>No, you are missing something.</p><p>1) Libraries.<br>2) Ability to do file management inside the file dialog.<br>3) Workmanship.</p><p>How can you claim that libraries in Win7 are something that Linux has is beyond me.  I have the latest Ubuntu, and win7, and my ubuntu is running KDE, and honestly, KDE's dialogs suck.</p><p>Seriously, look at the left of the dialog in Win7...</p><p><a href="http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=8" title="treatyist.com">http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=8</a> [treatyist.com]</p><p>See that little thing that says "libraries"<br>See the crumb thingy at the top<br>And, if you actually used it, you might notice that if you hit the right mouse button, you get all the shell extensions.. and you can rename, copy, delete, etc... and even launch another app inside your file dialog...</p><p>And you tell me THIS is better?</p><p><a href="http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=15" title="treatyist.com">http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=15</a> [treatyist.com]</p><p>or THIS is better?</p><p><a href="http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=16" title="treatyist.com">http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=16</a> [treatyist.com]</p><p>than this?</p><p><a href="http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=17" title="treatyist.com">http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=17</a> [treatyist.com]</p><p>I thought Open Source was about honest communications.  And, instead, I get a sea of rationalization that Linux's AMC Pacer dialogs are even in the same ballpark as Win7's Caddy's.  They just aren't.</p><p>Maybe if FOSS people got paid for their product, they won't have to make it into a religious crusade and could deal with it objectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What are you talking about , wrt W7 dialogs being so drastically superior to " Linux 's file dialogs " ? 1 ) Libraries.2 ) Ability to do file management inside the file dialog.3 ) Workmanship.Is there something significant I 'm missing here , or are you just blowing smoke ?
The file dialog in W7 is not only almost identical to what KDE has had since early 2002 ( no , I 'm not claiming they 'stole ' anything ) , but it 's also a dialog lacking the vast majority of the function that KDE has in its dialog.No , you are missing something.1 ) Libraries.2 ) Ability to do file management inside the file dialog.3 ) Workmanship.How can you claim that libraries in Win7 are something that Linux has is beyond me .
I have the latest Ubuntu , and win7 , and my ubuntu is running KDE , and honestly , KDE 's dialogs suck.Seriously , look at the left of the dialog in Win7...http : //www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx ? gallery = windows7vslinux&amp;image = 8 [ treatyist.com ] See that little thing that says " libraries " See the crumb thingy at the topAnd , if you actually used it , you might notice that if you hit the right mouse button , you get all the shell extensions.. and you can rename , copy , delete , etc... and even launch another app inside your file dialog...And you tell me THIS is better ? http : //www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx ? gallery = windows7vslinux&amp;image = 15 [ treatyist.com ] or THIS is better ? http : //www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx ? gallery = windows7vslinux&amp;image = 16 [ treatyist.com ] than this ? http : //www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx ? gallery = windows7vslinux&amp;image = 17 [ treatyist.com ] I thought Open Source was about honest communications .
And , instead , I get a sea of rationalization that Linux 's AMC Pacer dialogs are even in the same ballpark as Win7 's Caddy 's .
They just are n't.Maybe if FOSS people got paid for their product , they wo n't have to make it into a religious crusade and could deal with it objectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are you talking about, wrt W7 dialogs being so drastically superior to "Linux's file dialogs"?1) Libraries.2) Ability to do file management inside the file dialog.3) Workmanship.Is there something significant I'm missing here, or are you just blowing smoke?
The file dialog in W7 is not only almost identical to what KDE has had since early 2002 (no, I'm not claiming they 'stole' anything), but it's also a dialog lacking the vast majority of the function that KDE has in its dialog.No, you are missing something.1) Libraries.2) Ability to do file management inside the file dialog.3) Workmanship.How can you claim that libraries in Win7 are something that Linux has is beyond me.
I have the latest Ubuntu, and win7, and my ubuntu is running KDE, and honestly, KDE's dialogs suck.Seriously, look at the left of the dialog in Win7...http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=8 [treatyist.com]See that little thing that says "libraries"See the crumb thingy at the topAnd, if you actually used it, you might notice that if you hit the right mouse button, you get all the shell extensions.. and you can rename, copy, delete, etc... and even launch another app inside your file dialog...And you tell me THIS is better?http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=15 [treatyist.com]or THIS is better?http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=16 [treatyist.com]than this?http://www.treatyist.com/gallery.aspx?gallery=windows7vslinux&amp;image=17 [treatyist.com]I thought Open Source was about honest communications.
And, instead, I get a sea of rationalization that Linux's AMC Pacer dialogs are even in the same ballpark as Win7's Caddy's.
They just aren't.Maybe if FOSS people got paid for their product, they won't have to make it into a religious crusade and could deal with it objectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673921</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft may just fix this themselves</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247482320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yet it will have that familiar Windows logo on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet it will have that familiar Windows logo on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet it will have that familiar Windows logo on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673287</id>
	<title>Re:Secrecy</title>
	<author>ecki</author>
	<datestamp>1247516460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My workplace (over 100k users) just migrated to <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/online/exchange-online.mspx" title="microsoft.com">Microsoft hosted email</a> [microsoft.com]. And we're in some areas direct competitors of Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My workplace ( over 100k users ) just migrated to Microsoft hosted email [ microsoft.com ] .
And we 're in some areas direct competitors of Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My workplace (over 100k users) just migrated to Microsoft hosted email [microsoft.com].
And we're in some areas direct competitors of Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667567</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247416560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set, for a comparative amount of money?</i> </p><p>This is where the geek gets it wrong.</p><p> He sees the MS Office suite or perhaps Exchange.</p><p> What he doesn't see is that Microsoft - and Microsoft's partners - can deliver a turn key solution for a business of any size.</p><p>Microsoft has had close on to 35 years experience and - quite literally - tens of billions of dollars to spend on the study of office work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set , for a comparative amount of money ?
This is where the geek gets it wrong .
He sees the MS Office suite or perhaps Exchange .
What he does n't see is that Microsoft - and Microsoft 's partners - can deliver a turn key solution for a business of any size.Microsoft has had close on to 35 years experience and - quite literally - tens of billions of dollars to spend on the study of office work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set, for a comparative amount of money?
This is where the geek gets it wrong.
He sees the MS Office suite or perhaps Exchange.
What he doesn't see is that Microsoft - and Microsoft's partners - can deliver a turn key solution for a business of any size.Microsoft has had close on to 35 years experience and - quite literally - tens of billions of dollars to spend on the study of office work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667475</id>
	<title>Intertia and...</title>
	<author>wampus</author>
	<datestamp>1247415780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do Google apps plug into our existing AD infrastructure?  Can I book a conference room and phone bridge with it?  What about voting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do Google apps plug into our existing AD infrastructure ?
Can I book a conference room and phone bridge with it ?
What about voting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do Google apps plug into our existing AD infrastructure?
Can I book a conference room and phone bridge with it?
What about voting?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399</id>
	<title>Give me an alternative...</title>
	<author>simp</author>
	<datestamp>1247415000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've got 10 years of emails in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pst files. I use that as my personal knowledge base. Copernic desktop search is used for indexing  those emails, it kicks all the other search tools in the balls. X1, MS desktop search, Google desktop, they are all not quite there yet.<br>The Outlook calendar function is also vital but can be migrated to something else much more easily. Not so the emails.  Until I have something with which I can migrate my emails into a more sensible format than pst files and have a kick-ass search tool Outlook is not going anywhere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got 10 years of emails in .pst files .
I use that as my personal knowledge base .
Copernic desktop search is used for indexing those emails , it kicks all the other search tools in the balls .
X1 , MS desktop search , Google desktop , they are all not quite there yet.The Outlook calendar function is also vital but can be migrated to something else much more easily .
Not so the emails .
Until I have something with which I can migrate my emails into a more sensible format than pst files and have a kick-ass search tool Outlook is not going anywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got 10 years of emails in .pst files.
I use that as my personal knowledge base.
Copernic desktop search is used for indexing  those emails, it kicks all the other search tools in the balls.
X1, MS desktop search, Google desktop, they are all not quite there yet.The Outlook calendar function is also vital but can be migrated to something else much more easily.
Not so the emails.
Until I have something with which I can migrate my emails into a more sensible format than pst files and have a kick-ass search tool Outlook is not going anywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</id>
	<title>Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>chrylis</author>
	<datestamp>1247413200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The most exasperating irony of this situation (and its siblings of getting people to switch off of MS Office and Windows) is that each new version of Windows (and, recently Office) is a drastically new product anyway.  Businesses say they don't want to retrain employees (and schools say that they have to train for MS products)--and then when XP or Vista or Win7 rolls around, they retrain anyway but still claim that familiarity with the interface is the reason they won't consider alternatives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The most exasperating irony of this situation ( and its siblings of getting people to switch off of MS Office and Windows ) is that each new version of Windows ( and , recently Office ) is a drastically new product anyway .
Businesses say they do n't want to retrain employees ( and schools say that they have to train for MS products ) --and then when XP or Vista or Win7 rolls around , they retrain anyway but still claim that familiarity with the interface is the reason they wo n't consider alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most exasperating irony of this situation (and its siblings of getting people to switch off of MS Office and Windows) is that each new version of Windows (and, recently Office) is a drastically new product anyway.
Businesses say they don't want to retrain employees (and schools say that they have to train for MS products)--and then when XP or Vista or Win7 rolls around, they retrain anyway but still claim that familiarity with the interface is the reason they won't consider alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667313</id>
	<title>Google looking ahead to Wave of future</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247414040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google appear to be actually focusing on emails replacement and to me it looks very promising:

Wave combines email, instant messaging and collaboration. You can run it on googles servers or on your own. Its very promising.
Google Wave <a href="http://wave.google.com/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://wave.google.com/</a> [google.com]

Common irritations with email,
- replying to one person, reply to the group, making sure everyones included
- trying to coordinate on one document via email and contant back forth emails</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google appear to be actually focusing on emails replacement and to me it looks very promising : Wave combines email , instant messaging and collaboration .
You can run it on googles servers or on your own .
Its very promising .
Google Wave http : //wave.google.com/ [ google.com ] Common irritations with email , - replying to one person , reply to the group , making sure everyones included - trying to coordinate on one document via email and contant back forth emails</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google appear to be actually focusing on emails replacement and to me it looks very promising:

Wave combines email, instant messaging and collaboration.
You can run it on googles servers or on your own.
Its very promising.
Google Wave http://wave.google.com/ [google.com]

Common irritations with email,
- replying to one person, reply to the group, making sure everyones included
- trying to coordinate on one document via email and contant back forth emails</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670259</id>
	<title>Re:Give me an alternative...</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1247396640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So sorry...<br>I have 10+ years of emails in maildir format (ie 1 small raw textfile for each mail), separated into dirs by year or months depending on the volume of mail for a given time period. Over the time i've collected it, i've migrated it between at least 6 different physical servers running a variety of different mail server software and accessed it using a variety of different imap clients... You've screwed yourself by getting your important data locked in a proprietary format, so you've lost the freedom i have to choose what i access my mail from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So sorry...I have 10 + years of emails in maildir format ( ie 1 small raw textfile for each mail ) , separated into dirs by year or months depending on the volume of mail for a given time period .
Over the time i 've collected it , i 've migrated it between at least 6 different physical servers running a variety of different mail server software and accessed it using a variety of different imap clients... You 've screwed yourself by getting your important data locked in a proprietary format , so you 've lost the freedom i have to choose what i access my mail from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So sorry...I have 10+ years of emails in maildir format (ie 1 small raw textfile for each mail), separated into dirs by year or months depending on the volume of mail for a given time period.
Over the time i've collected it, i've migrated it between at least 6 different physical servers running a variety of different mail server software and accessed it using a variety of different imap clients... You've screwed yourself by getting your important data locked in a proprietary format, so you've lost the freedom i have to choose what i access my mail from.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28689361</id>
	<title>Re:Agreed - Too Much of a Paradigm Shift</title>
	<author>Lord\_Byron</author>
	<datestamp>1247578920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check 'Skip Inbox' when you create or edit that Facebook filter.  Labels look like folders to me, both in terms of having a thing I click to bring up stuff in that folder (or with that label) and looking like a folder to my IMAP client.</p><p>I am really surprised I haven't noticed the lack of sorting before &amp; that does seem like a stunning oversight. I know I use it in Thunderbird &amp; Outlook all the time, the former with GMail-hosted email.</p><p>That is one additional thing you might find interesting: there is no reason you can't use Outlook with GMail.  Then you have the option to do both.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check 'Skip Inbox ' when you create or edit that Facebook filter .
Labels look like folders to me , both in terms of having a thing I click to bring up stuff in that folder ( or with that label ) and looking like a folder to my IMAP client.I am really surprised I have n't noticed the lack of sorting before &amp; that does seem like a stunning oversight .
I know I use it in Thunderbird &amp; Outlook all the time , the former with GMail-hosted email.That is one additional thing you might find interesting : there is no reason you ca n't use Outlook with GMail .
Then you have the option to do both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check 'Skip Inbox' when you create or edit that Facebook filter.
Labels look like folders to me, both in terms of having a thing I click to bring up stuff in that folder (or with that label) and looking like a folder to my IMAP client.I am really surprised I haven't noticed the lack of sorting before &amp; that does seem like a stunning oversight.
I know I use it in Thunderbird &amp; Outlook all the time, the former with GMail-hosted email.That is one additional thing you might find interesting: there is no reason you can't use Outlook with GMail.
Then you have the option to do both.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668827</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247428440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given what most users of Sharepoint and Outlook I've encountered use it for, that should be office "work". Making Excel work as a database isn't real work, it's DOING IT WRONG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given what most users of Sharepoint and Outlook I 've encountered use it for , that should be office " work " .
Making Excel work as a database is n't real work , it 's DOING IT WRONG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given what most users of Sharepoint and Outlook I've encountered use it for, that should be office "work".
Making Excel work as a database isn't real work, it's DOING IT WRONG.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667567</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667147</id>
	<title>Can you help me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247412360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A friend told me to come here for help installing a linux in my windows.  Does anybody know where I can get a pirated copy of the linux?</htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend told me to come here for help installing a linux in my windows .
Does anybody know where I can get a pirated copy of the linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend told me to come here for help installing a linux in my windows.
Does anybody know where I can get a pirated copy of the linux?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28675583</id>
	<title>Searchability</title>
	<author>Nerdposeur</author>
	<datestamp>1247497080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A few days ago at work I was looking for an Outlook email conversation from maybe 6 months prior. Spent several minutes and couldn't find it, meaning I have to repeat some work, which costs the company.</p><p>If I open my personal Gmail, I can find a 4-year-old congratulatory email from my brother in about 5 seconds with a simple search.</p><p>My company would be better served by the searchability Gmail offers. Whatever other obstacles there are, that's a great benefit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A few days ago at work I was looking for an Outlook email conversation from maybe 6 months prior .
Spent several minutes and could n't find it , meaning I have to repeat some work , which costs the company.If I open my personal Gmail , I can find a 4-year-old congratulatory email from my brother in about 5 seconds with a simple search.My company would be better served by the searchability Gmail offers .
Whatever other obstacles there are , that 's a great benefit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A few days ago at work I was looking for an Outlook email conversation from maybe 6 months prior.
Spent several minutes and couldn't find it, meaning I have to repeat some work, which costs the company.If I open my personal Gmail, I can find a 4-year-old congratulatory email from my brother in about 5 seconds with a simple search.My company would be better served by the searchability Gmail offers.
Whatever other obstacles there are, that's a great benefit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668531</id>
	<title>Re:Proper operating systems...</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247425620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows doesn't even come with a decent shell, so it's already decades behind unix-like systems on file management.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows does n't even come with a decent shell , so it 's already decades behind unix-like systems on file management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows doesn't even come with a decent shell, so it's already decades behind unix-like systems on file management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667495</id>
	<title>Zimbra instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247415960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Outlook + Exchange isn't really about the email side.  Heck, Postfix and Courier IMAP do that better than Exchange for free.</p><p>It is about the Enterprise Calendaring.  That's the killer app part when combined with Outlook.  Individual calendaring is trivial and done well enough all over the place. Enterprise calendaring is where you can see other peoples' free/busy status and confidently schedule meetings without asking 10 people their availability.</p><p>Zimbra Network Edition, NE, (paid) does enterprise calendaring and many other things, while integrating with Outlook.  Further, you can place 2x and more users on the same server infra as Exchange.  Zimbra Community Edition, CE, doesn't support Outlook interfaces for Calendaring at all, but everything else works fairly well with Outlook. My experience with Thunderbird and Zimbra calendaring is read-only, no write.  The web interface rocks for everything, so many of your users won't need to use MS-Outlook to be productive.  CE is free.</p><p>Lots of extras included with Zimbra - Jabber/IM, Shared calendars, shared contacts, and a few other things that aren't worth using for most companies like a document store and highly simplified wiki. The alternatives like Alfresco and MediaWiki are 1,000x better.</p><p>Either Zimbra edition fits into your existing LDAP infrastructure since it is OpenLDAP or you can let Zimbra be the primary LDAP with or without replication.  Samba and POSIX accounts can be supported too. While it isn't SSO, it is single password, which is a good start for free.</p><p>For small companies, Zimbra can be run in a VM without any performance issues. We use Xen and 1.2GB or RAM.  It can scale to 20,000+ users.  Many Universities use Zimbra for staff and student email.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Outlook + Exchange is n't really about the email side .
Heck , Postfix and Courier IMAP do that better than Exchange for free.It is about the Enterprise Calendaring .
That 's the killer app part when combined with Outlook .
Individual calendaring is trivial and done well enough all over the place .
Enterprise calendaring is where you can see other peoples ' free/busy status and confidently schedule meetings without asking 10 people their availability.Zimbra Network Edition , NE , ( paid ) does enterprise calendaring and many other things , while integrating with Outlook .
Further , you can place 2x and more users on the same server infra as Exchange .
Zimbra Community Edition , CE , does n't support Outlook interfaces for Calendaring at all , but everything else works fairly well with Outlook .
My experience with Thunderbird and Zimbra calendaring is read-only , no write .
The web interface rocks for everything , so many of your users wo n't need to use MS-Outlook to be productive .
CE is free.Lots of extras included with Zimbra - Jabber/IM , Shared calendars , shared contacts , and a few other things that are n't worth using for most companies like a document store and highly simplified wiki .
The alternatives like Alfresco and MediaWiki are 1,000x better.Either Zimbra edition fits into your existing LDAP infrastructure since it is OpenLDAP or you can let Zimbra be the primary LDAP with or without replication .
Samba and POSIX accounts can be supported too .
While it is n't SSO , it is single password , which is a good start for free.For small companies , Zimbra can be run in a VM without any performance issues .
We use Xen and 1.2GB or RAM .
It can scale to 20,000 + users .
Many Universities use Zimbra for staff and student email .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Outlook + Exchange isn't really about the email side.
Heck, Postfix and Courier IMAP do that better than Exchange for free.It is about the Enterprise Calendaring.
That's the killer app part when combined with Outlook.
Individual calendaring is trivial and done well enough all over the place.
Enterprise calendaring is where you can see other peoples' free/busy status and confidently schedule meetings without asking 10 people their availability.Zimbra Network Edition, NE, (paid) does enterprise calendaring and many other things, while integrating with Outlook.
Further, you can place 2x and more users on the same server infra as Exchange.
Zimbra Community Edition, CE, doesn't support Outlook interfaces for Calendaring at all, but everything else works fairly well with Outlook.
My experience with Thunderbird and Zimbra calendaring is read-only, no write.
The web interface rocks for everything, so many of your users won't need to use MS-Outlook to be productive.
CE is free.Lots of extras included with Zimbra - Jabber/IM, Shared calendars, shared contacts, and a few other things that aren't worth using for most companies like a document store and highly simplified wiki.
The alternatives like Alfresco and MediaWiki are 1,000x better.Either Zimbra edition fits into your existing LDAP infrastructure since it is OpenLDAP or you can let Zimbra be the primary LDAP with or without replication.
Samba and POSIX accounts can be supported too.
While it isn't SSO, it is single password, which is a good start for free.For small companies, Zimbra can be run in a VM without any performance issues.
We use Xen and 1.2GB or RAM.
It can scale to 20,000+ users.
Many Universities use Zimbra for staff and student email.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247</id>
	<title>Microsoft may just fix this themselves</title>
	<author>localroger</author>
	<datestamp>1247413380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the next version of Outlook is as different as the last issue of Word was from everything that went before, the advantage of familiarity will disappear.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the next version of Outlook is as different as the last issue of Word was from everything that went before , the advantage of familiarity will disappear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the next version of Outlook is as different as the last issue of Word was from everything that went before, the advantage of familiarity will disappear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667233</id>
	<title>Replacing Outlook and Office are the key apps</title>
	<author>prometheon123</author>
	<datestamp>1247413260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>About 7 years ago, I did a Linux desktop pilot with a large ad firm in Chicago.  It would have reduced their costs, improved reliability, etc.  However, the IT Director at the time did everything she could to work against me.  She wouldn't enable IMAP on the server, which made switching off of Notes impossible.  Further more, OpenOffice was 1.0 and the compatibility with Office docs was terrible, and it's not a whole helluva lot better today.  Almost every other app had a viable open source replacement, but the Office suite was the Achilles heel.

If the open source community could get a full replacement for the Office suite, especially Outlook, it wouldn't be as hard to switch to Linux on the desktop.  Maybe now that Oracle owns OpenOffice, we'll get better compatibility with Office files.  However, compatibility isn't enough as "me too" products don't do very well in the market place.  We need something that has enough "killer features" compelling enough to switch off of Office and Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>About 7 years ago , I did a Linux desktop pilot with a large ad firm in Chicago .
It would have reduced their costs , improved reliability , etc .
However , the IT Director at the time did everything she could to work against me .
She would n't enable IMAP on the server , which made switching off of Notes impossible .
Further more , OpenOffice was 1.0 and the compatibility with Office docs was terrible , and it 's not a whole helluva lot better today .
Almost every other app had a viable open source replacement , but the Office suite was the Achilles heel .
If the open source community could get a full replacement for the Office suite , especially Outlook , it would n't be as hard to switch to Linux on the desktop .
Maybe now that Oracle owns OpenOffice , we 'll get better compatibility with Office files .
However , compatibility is n't enough as " me too " products do n't do very well in the market place .
We need something that has enough " killer features " compelling enough to switch off of Office and Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 7 years ago, I did a Linux desktop pilot with a large ad firm in Chicago.
It would have reduced their costs, improved reliability, etc.
However, the IT Director at the time did everything she could to work against me.
She wouldn't enable IMAP on the server, which made switching off of Notes impossible.
Further more, OpenOffice was 1.0 and the compatibility with Office docs was terrible, and it's not a whole helluva lot better today.
Almost every other app had a viable open source replacement, but the Office suite was the Achilles heel.
If the open source community could get a full replacement for the Office suite, especially Outlook, it wouldn't be as hard to switch to Linux on the desktop.
Maybe now that Oracle owns OpenOffice, we'll get better compatibility with Office files.
However, compatibility isn't enough as "me too" products don't do very well in the market place.
We need something that has enough "killer features" compelling enough to switch off of Office and Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423</id>
	<title>Saw this first hand</title>
	<author>TrippTDF</author>
	<datestamp>1247415300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last year I helped a 20 person company transition from Exchange to Google Apps.  Technically everything went fine, but once the transition was done, everyone refused to use the Google's web interface even though some of them used gmail for personal use!  We wound up using IMAP through Outlook to bring everyone back to where they had been before.<br> <br>
I was sitting down with one woman who just flat out refused to do anything different.  I was in the middle of setting up Outlook for her, and we had the following conversation:<br> <br>

Her:  Outlook is so slow-  the messages take forever to load!<br>
Me:  Well, you don't get that with a web-based system, because it is much more efficient at getting to your messages faster than your single hard drive<br>
Her:  Oh.  Now, is there a way I can put the same message in multiple folders without making a duplcate?<br>
Me:  Actually, with Gmail you can use labels to assign one message to multiple labels, making organization much easier<br>
Her:  Oh.  <br> <br>

It went on like this for awhile, and at the end of the day, gmail clearly did everything she wanted outlook to do, but she still refused to use anything different.<br> <br>

Google's biggest challenge is not a technical one-  it's a marketing one.  Google has to convince everyone that they have a product that really is better.  It's not impossible, but it will take longer than it should<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year I helped a 20 person company transition from Exchange to Google Apps .
Technically everything went fine , but once the transition was done , everyone refused to use the Google 's web interface even though some of them used gmail for personal use !
We wound up using IMAP through Outlook to bring everyone back to where they had been before .
I was sitting down with one woman who just flat out refused to do anything different .
I was in the middle of setting up Outlook for her , and we had the following conversation : Her : Outlook is so slow- the messages take forever to load !
Me : Well , you do n't get that with a web-based system , because it is much more efficient at getting to your messages faster than your single hard drive Her : Oh .
Now , is there a way I can put the same message in multiple folders without making a duplcate ?
Me : Actually , with Gmail you can use labels to assign one message to multiple labels , making organization much easier Her : Oh .
It went on like this for awhile , and at the end of the day , gmail clearly did everything she wanted outlook to do , but she still refused to use anything different .
Google 's biggest challenge is not a technical one- it 's a marketing one .
Google has to convince everyone that they have a product that really is better .
It 's not impossible , but it will take longer than it should : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year I helped a 20 person company transition from Exchange to Google Apps.
Technically everything went fine, but once the transition was done, everyone refused to use the Google's web interface even though some of them used gmail for personal use!
We wound up using IMAP through Outlook to bring everyone back to where they had been before.
I was sitting down with one woman who just flat out refused to do anything different.
I was in the middle of setting up Outlook for her, and we had the following conversation: 

Her:  Outlook is so slow-  the messages take forever to load!
Me:  Well, you don't get that with a web-based system, because it is much more efficient at getting to your messages faster than your single hard drive
Her:  Oh.
Now, is there a way I can put the same message in multiple folders without making a duplcate?
Me:  Actually, with Gmail you can use labels to assign one message to multiple labels, making organization much easier
Her:  Oh.
It went on like this for awhile, and at the end of the day, gmail clearly did everything she wanted outlook to do, but she still refused to use anything different.
Google's biggest challenge is not a technical one-  it's a marketing one.
Google has to convince everyone that they have a product that really is better.
It's not impossible, but it will take longer than it should :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667981</id>
	<title>Re:Proper operating systems...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247420100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"File dialogs" are not part of a "proper operating system". In face, a GUI is not *part* of a "proper operating system" either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" File dialogs " are not part of a " proper operating system " .
In face , a GUI is not * part * of a " proper operating system " either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"File dialogs" are not part of a "proper operating system".
In face, a GUI is not *part* of a "proper operating system" either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671391</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247407740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, well no \_true\_ Scotsman would use Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , well no \ _true \ _ Scotsman would use Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, well no \_true\_ Scotsman would use Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667619</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>todrules</author>
	<datestamp>1247417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And also the integration with Communicator and Live Meeting. I have teammates all over the country, and these tools make it a lot easier to collaborate and communicate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And also the integration with Communicator and Live Meeting .
I have teammates all over the country , and these tools make it a lot easier to collaborate and communicate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And also the integration with Communicator and Live Meeting.
I have teammates all over the country, and these tools make it a lot easier to collaborate and communicate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671325</id>
	<title>You can do it does not justify doing it</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1247406900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look at iphone:</p><p>the good old simple protocol approach for mail against fancy browser base mail client.</p><p>Why we need a complicate platform bound javascript or flash applications?</p><p>If browser-based-os means we edit the data on the browser in place without needing a platform bound fragile editor loading from server, that is a good step forward. The browser should be a read/write device. Multiple protocol, multiple format, portable, easy to develop for. Not a in-compatible fancy jungle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at iphone : the good old simple protocol approach for mail against fancy browser base mail client.Why we need a complicate platform bound javascript or flash applications ? If browser-based-os means we edit the data on the browser in place without needing a platform bound fragile editor loading from server , that is a good step forward .
The browser should be a read/write device .
Multiple protocol , multiple format , portable , easy to develop for .
Not a in-compatible fancy jungle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at iphone:the good old simple protocol approach for mail against fancy browser base mail client.Why we need a complicate platform bound javascript or flash applications?If browser-based-os means we edit the data on the browser in place without needing a platform bound fragile editor loading from server, that is a good step forward.
The browser should be a read/write device.
Multiple protocol, multiple format, portable, easy to develop for.
Not a in-compatible fancy jungle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669039</id>
	<title>Re:Proper operating systems...</title>
	<author>oiron</author>
	<datestamp>1247430000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try KDE4's file dialogs with Nepomuk enabled sometime, and see how a file dialog should <i>really</i> be done...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try KDE4 's file dialogs with Nepomuk enabled sometime , and see how a file dialog should really be done.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try KDE4's file dialogs with Nepomuk enabled sometime, and see how a file dialog should really be done...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668473</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>lwsimon</author>
	<datestamp>1247425140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?  I remember the introduction of "My Documents" and "Program Files" in Win95, then "My Documents/My (Photos|Videos|Porn)" in XP, and now a more Unix-like "/Users//(Documents|Photos|Videos|Porn)" in Vista.  I'm still getting programs add all kinda of dumb folders under my home directory in Vista - Firefox downloads default to ~/Documents/Downloads, while IE defaults to ~/Downloads, etc.</p><p>Windows UI may not have significantly changed in its layout, but there have been significant changes in file structure over the years.  For people who barely know how to find their files in the first place, this is a big issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
I remember the introduction of " My Documents " and " Program Files " in Win95 , then " My Documents/My ( Photos | Videos | Porn ) " in XP , and now a more Unix-like " /Users// ( Documents | Photos | Videos | Porn ) " in Vista .
I 'm still getting programs add all kinda of dumb folders under my home directory in Vista - Firefox downloads default to ~ /Documents/Downloads , while IE defaults to ~ /Downloads , etc.Windows UI may not have significantly changed in its layout , but there have been significant changes in file structure over the years .
For people who barely know how to find their files in the first place , this is a big issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
I remember the introduction of "My Documents" and "Program Files" in Win95, then "My Documents/My (Photos|Videos|Porn)" in XP, and now a more Unix-like "/Users//(Documents|Photos|Videos|Porn)" in Vista.
I'm still getting programs add all kinda of dumb folders under my home directory in Vista - Firefox downloads default to ~/Documents/Downloads, while IE defaults to ~/Downloads, etc.Windows UI may not have significantly changed in its layout, but there have been significant changes in file structure over the years.
For people who barely know how to find their files in the first place, this is a big issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671619</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1247409420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>drivers are broken. Not an OS issue.</p></div></blockquote><p>With respect, when most people stumble out of their field and argue about another they are unfamiliar with they usually at least have the decency to refer to a dictionary.  If a hardware driver is not part of the OS then what the f* is?.<br>Your comment about X shows that you are really thinking of it in terms of a full desktop VNC instead of a way to run single applications from multiple hosts - and you can get X for MS Windows anyway although it only works in one direction (hopefully now that MS is attempting to move into clusters they will do something about that).<br>The mixup about DLL hell is amusing and puts all your other replies into context.  I also suspect that your view of the registry also stems from little experience with that obfiscated hiding place for malware which was really only possible to backup when volume shadow copy came around - when the one file that NEEDS to be backed up can't be backed up within the operating system that is a bit of a sign that things are broken.  The number of times people have come to me saying the backups have everything apart from the registry and the users email and could I please help recover the disk is somewhat ridiculous - until recently it was a hobby OS suitable for launching games that somehow got into the workplace.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>drivers are broken .
Not an OS issue.With respect , when most people stumble out of their field and argue about another they are unfamiliar with they usually at least have the decency to refer to a dictionary .
If a hardware driver is not part of the OS then what the f * is ? .Your comment about X shows that you are really thinking of it in terms of a full desktop VNC instead of a way to run single applications from multiple hosts - and you can get X for MS Windows anyway although it only works in one direction ( hopefully now that MS is attempting to move into clusters they will do something about that ) .The mixup about DLL hell is amusing and puts all your other replies into context .
I also suspect that your view of the registry also stems from little experience with that obfiscated hiding place for malware which was really only possible to backup when volume shadow copy came around - when the one file that NEEDS to be backed up ca n't be backed up within the operating system that is a bit of a sign that things are broken .
The number of times people have come to me saying the backups have everything apart from the registry and the users email and could I please help recover the disk is somewhat ridiculous - until recently it was a hobby OS suitable for launching games that somehow got into the workplace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>drivers are broken.
Not an OS issue.With respect, when most people stumble out of their field and argue about another they are unfamiliar with they usually at least have the decency to refer to a dictionary.
If a hardware driver is not part of the OS then what the f* is?.Your comment about X shows that you are really thinking of it in terms of a full desktop VNC instead of a way to run single applications from multiple hosts - and you can get X for MS Windows anyway although it only works in one direction (hopefully now that MS is attempting to move into clusters they will do something about that).The mixup about DLL hell is amusing and puts all your other replies into context.
I also suspect that your view of the registry also stems from little experience with that obfiscated hiding place for malware which was really only possible to backup when volume shadow copy came around - when the one file that NEEDS to be backed up can't be backed up within the operating system that is a bit of a sign that things are broken.
The number of times people have come to me saying the backups have everything apart from the registry and the users email and could I please help recover the disk is somewhat ridiculous - until recently it was a hobby OS suitable for launching games that somehow got into the workplace.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667639</id>
	<title>Clippy?</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1247417160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>..employees' unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiar.</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>..employees ' unwillingness to give up a tool that 's so familiar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..employees' unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiar.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671605</id>
	<title>Re: Problems with Windows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247409300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Modern forms of Windows are fairly good OSes. However, since you asked, there are a few things that drive me up the wall about Windows. (For what it's worth, I spend a fairly equal amount of time on Windows and Linux.)</p><p>1. Drivers. Windows doesn't come with nearly enough drivers. Also, XP at least, tends to "forget" drivers which are installed, requiring them to be installed again and again.</p><p>2. Package management. As far as I know, Windows will only let you install or un-install most apps one at a time. This is terribly slow and primitive.</p><p>3. The UI won't get out of the way and leave me alone. I know there are updates, I know you found a problem, I know there are unused icons on my desktop. I know you want a cookie, leave me alone and let me get back to work.</p><p>As you pointed out, there are some terrible problems with Linux too, like sound and heavy reliance on the command line.  Though, now that I think of it, there are some admin tasks which have to be performed on the Windows command line too. Ever tried to change your TCP window settings in Vista without using a command line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Modern forms of Windows are fairly good OSes .
However , since you asked , there are a few things that drive me up the wall about Windows .
( For what it 's worth , I spend a fairly equal amount of time on Windows and Linux. ) 1 .
Drivers. Windows does n't come with nearly enough drivers .
Also , XP at least , tends to " forget " drivers which are installed , requiring them to be installed again and again.2 .
Package management .
As far as I know , Windows will only let you install or un-install most apps one at a time .
This is terribly slow and primitive.3 .
The UI wo n't get out of the way and leave me alone .
I know there are updates , I know you found a problem , I know there are unused icons on my desktop .
I know you want a cookie , leave me alone and let me get back to work.As you pointed out , there are some terrible problems with Linux too , like sound and heavy reliance on the command line .
Though , now that I think of it , there are some admin tasks which have to be performed on the Windows command line too .
Ever tried to change your TCP window settings in Vista without using a command line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Modern forms of Windows are fairly good OSes.
However, since you asked, there are a few things that drive me up the wall about Windows.
(For what it's worth, I spend a fairly equal amount of time on Windows and Linux.)1.
Drivers. Windows doesn't come with nearly enough drivers.
Also, XP at least, tends to "forget" drivers which are installed, requiring them to be installed again and again.2.
Package management.
As far as I know, Windows will only let you install or un-install most apps one at a time.
This is terribly slow and primitive.3.
The UI won't get out of the way and leave me alone.
I know there are updates, I know you found a problem, I know there are unused icons on my desktop.
I know you want a cookie, leave me alone and let me get back to work.As you pointed out, there are some terrible problems with Linux too, like sound and heavy reliance on the command line.
Though, now that I think of it, there are some admin tasks which have to be performed on the Windows command line too.
Ever tried to change your TCP window settings in Vista without using a command line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667751</id>
	<title>Re:Intertia and...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247417940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Do Google apps plug into our existing AD infrastructure?</p></div></blockquote><p>Yes.  Learn more about Google Apps integration with AD and other SSO systems, but it most certainly does.</p><blockquote><div><p>Can I book a conference room and phone bridge with it? What about voting?</p></div></blockquote><p>No.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do Google apps plug into our existing AD infrastructure ? Yes .
Learn more about Google Apps integration with AD and other SSO systems , but it most certainly does.Can I book a conference room and phone bridge with it ?
What about voting ? No .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do Google apps plug into our existing AD infrastructure?Yes.
Learn more about Google Apps integration with AD and other SSO systems, but it most certainly does.Can I book a conference room and phone bridge with it?
What about voting?No.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668095</id>
	<title>Re:I'd say:</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1247421000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>mod parent up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>mod parent up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mod parent up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668081</id>
	<title>Re:Saw this first hand</title>
	<author>teknopurge</author>
	<datestamp>1247420880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is their product is not better.  All I hear from the google camp is how they like the simple gmail interface, labels, threading, etc.  I have yet to hear of any new features in GMail that haven't existed in another kit for many years.
<br> <br> <br>
Just as background: we run everything.  Exchange, Zimbra, Linux, OpenBSD, Solaris, IRIX (I know!), etc...   The fact is you pick the right tool for the right job.  So many people try and tell me how great their iPhones are because they can now copy/paste things.  I hear the same about GMail when users got IMAP[revolutionary] access.
<br> <br> <br>

Do you want to know why users have trouble switching to another platform?  Because they have better things to do.  More than likely their job is not related to fiddling with new Kernels or tweaking PHP.  Why should they spend more time relearning something(sending email for example) when the new system doesn't do anything more efficiently?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is their product is not better .
All I hear from the google camp is how they like the simple gmail interface , labels , threading , etc .
I have yet to hear of any new features in GMail that have n't existed in another kit for many years .
Just as background : we run everything .
Exchange , Zimbra , Linux , OpenBSD , Solaris , IRIX ( I know !
) , etc... The fact is you pick the right tool for the right job .
So many people try and tell me how great their iPhones are because they can now copy/paste things .
I hear the same about GMail when users got IMAP [ revolutionary ] access .
Do you want to know why users have trouble switching to another platform ?
Because they have better things to do .
More than likely their job is not related to fiddling with new Kernels or tweaking PHP .
Why should they spend more time relearning something ( sending email for example ) when the new system does n't do anything more efficiently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is their product is not better.
All I hear from the google camp is how they like the simple gmail interface, labels, threading, etc.
I have yet to hear of any new features in GMail that haven't existed in another kit for many years.
Just as background: we run everything.
Exchange, Zimbra, Linux, OpenBSD, Solaris, IRIX (I know!
), etc...   The fact is you pick the right tool for the right job.
So many people try and tell me how great their iPhones are because they can now copy/paste things.
I hear the same about GMail when users got IMAP[revolutionary] access.
Do you want to know why users have trouble switching to another platform?
Because they have better things to do.
More than likely their job is not related to fiddling with new Kernels or tweaking PHP.
Why should they spend more time relearning something(sending email for example) when the new system doesn't do anything more efficiently?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</id>
	<title>In other news</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1247412780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671901</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247412420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then again sure I can virtualize my xp, vista or windows 7 on a linux but then what else is there to linux?<br>Sure I can have linux run virtual instances of windows and close it afterwards. I could run games, office, emails, etc but at the end of the day large part of the population isnt going to be programming something. Linux pretty much has been for programmer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then again sure I can virtualize my xp , vista or windows 7 on a linux but then what else is there to linux ? Sure I can have linux run virtual instances of windows and close it afterwards .
I could run games , office , emails , etc but at the end of the day large part of the population isnt going to be programming something .
Linux pretty much has been for programmer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then again sure I can virtualize my xp, vista or windows 7 on a linux but then what else is there to linux?Sure I can have linux run virtual instances of windows and close it afterwards.
I could run games, office, emails, etc but at the end of the day large part of the population isnt going to be programming something.
Linux pretty much has been for programmer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</id>
	<title>Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247412600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know, I know, the prevailing opinion is that SharePoint sucks, but in my experience, companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office, would rather give up their children than that combo. <p>
Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set, for a comparative amount of money? </p><p>
Its full Lock-In, and I have no idea how Google competes with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know , I know , the prevailing opinion is that SharePoint sucks , but in my experience , companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office , would rather give up their children than that combo .
Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set , for a comparative amount of money ?
Its full Lock-In , and I have no idea how Google competes with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know, I know, the prevailing opinion is that SharePoint sucks, but in my experience, companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office, would rather give up their children than that combo.
Where is the competition for that ENTIRE feature set, for a comparative amount of money?
Its full Lock-In, and I have no idea how Google competes with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668105</id>
	<title>Behavioral Momentum, Formal and Informal</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1247421060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Behavioral momentum*** <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral\_momentum" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral\_momentum</a> [wikipedia.org] is formally a term describing the quantification of resistance to change in opposition with the pressure to change. The latter is phrased in terms of reinforcement because it was comes from the efforts to quantify the component phenomena in learning theory as laid out by Skinner. It implies any and all sources of resistance be considered as a single force.</p><p>Informally, the 'resistance(s) to change' suffices when applying it to a situation such as in TFA. The PC World article correctly though accidentally calls it an 'anxiety'. It could be described in terms of cognitive dissonance <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance</a> [wikipedia.org] but we're in the informal section now, so you can read the first line and see that it's an 'uncomfortable feeling' regarding (among other possibilities) 'awareness of one's behavior'.</p><p>There are few instances when one is more aware of one's behavior than when one is asked to perform a task in a way different from an accustomed manner. Being so aware of it is part and parcel with the awareness required to perform in an unfamiliar way and with the (performance, not separation, as per TFA) anxiety caused by the enforced change. That's an object summary of cognitive dissonance in action.</p><p>The greybeards out there may recall when they first encountered a mouse/GUI interface. Many noted that CLI worked just fine if not better. (You youngsters can ask them -- you know how they love to talk about the old days.) Making the switch was not that difficult because the new way was very easy to understand and so required little thought. But more importantly it was easier because it was very different and so didn't require unthinking an old way and new-thinking a new way without encountering as much anxiety provoking instances of potential or actual mistake making.</p><p>With the above we can then approach the nature of the problem in TFA and so the solution.</p><p>The average IT consumer knows little about what they're causing to happen other than pushing certain buttons causes certain things to happen that they need to happen in order to do their job. Making this easy for them to do is fine for getting them working quickly. But getting them working efficiently quickly does not teach them what they are doing. F'rinstance, if they want to move a section of words from one place to another, they don't even have to know what the names given to control-X and control-V are, they just know it does the job (and these days it's unlikely even you out there ever used scissors or razor blades and mucilage to cut and paste anything).</p><p>Along with the familiarity with the procedure, particularly without a grasp of the underlying mechanisms, and prior to any attempt to alter the procedure, comes behavioral momentum. People get used to doing something a certain way and *with a certain level of confidence*. Now, ask them to do exactly the same thing a different way. You've knocked them back down the front of the learning curve without the ladder of basic understanding.</p><p>Had they been taught how to do the same thing more than one way, and told what it is they're causing to happen, they could find that ladder. Trapped as they are though, they're aware of difficulty and incapability and little else. Anyone who's tried to teach someone a different method knows about that 'and little else'. It often seems they can't hear your instruction and can't get their head talking to their hands. They're frequently worse than complete neophytes because they'll freeze up when trying to do the most basic things that they know well in terms of 'how' with a different set of actions.</p><p>Those of us who've learned more than one OS or used learned several differently designed programs for doing the same things have an advantage not often appreciated by program designers and especially by those such as the Google group trying</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Behavioral momentum * * * http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral \ _momentum [ wikipedia.org ] is formally a term describing the quantification of resistance to change in opposition with the pressure to change .
The latter is phrased in terms of reinforcement because it was comes from the efforts to quantify the component phenomena in learning theory as laid out by Skinner .
It implies any and all sources of resistance be considered as a single force.Informally , the 'resistance ( s ) to change ' suffices when applying it to a situation such as in TFA .
The PC World article correctly though accidentally calls it an 'anxiety' .
It could be described in terms of cognitive dissonance http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive \ _dissonance [ wikipedia.org ] but we 're in the informal section now , so you can read the first line and see that it 's an 'uncomfortable feeling ' regarding ( among other possibilities ) 'awareness of one 's behavior'.There are few instances when one is more aware of one 's behavior than when one is asked to perform a task in a way different from an accustomed manner .
Being so aware of it is part and parcel with the awareness required to perform in an unfamiliar way and with the ( performance , not separation , as per TFA ) anxiety caused by the enforced change .
That 's an object summary of cognitive dissonance in action.The greybeards out there may recall when they first encountered a mouse/GUI interface .
Many noted that CLI worked just fine if not better .
( You youngsters can ask them -- you know how they love to talk about the old days .
) Making the switch was not that difficult because the new way was very easy to understand and so required little thought .
But more importantly it was easier because it was very different and so did n't require unthinking an old way and new-thinking a new way without encountering as much anxiety provoking instances of potential or actual mistake making.With the above we can then approach the nature of the problem in TFA and so the solution.The average IT consumer knows little about what they 're causing to happen other than pushing certain buttons causes certain things to happen that they need to happen in order to do their job .
Making this easy for them to do is fine for getting them working quickly .
But getting them working efficiently quickly does not teach them what they are doing .
F'rinstance , if they want to move a section of words from one place to another , they do n't even have to know what the names given to control-X and control-V are , they just know it does the job ( and these days it 's unlikely even you out there ever used scissors or razor blades and mucilage to cut and paste anything ) .Along with the familiarity with the procedure , particularly without a grasp of the underlying mechanisms , and prior to any attempt to alter the procedure , comes behavioral momentum .
People get used to doing something a certain way and * with a certain level of confidence * .
Now , ask them to do exactly the same thing a different way .
You 've knocked them back down the front of the learning curve without the ladder of basic understanding.Had they been taught how to do the same thing more than one way , and told what it is they 're causing to happen , they could find that ladder .
Trapped as they are though , they 're aware of difficulty and incapability and little else .
Anyone who 's tried to teach someone a different method knows about that 'and little else' .
It often seems they ca n't hear your instruction and ca n't get their head talking to their hands .
They 're frequently worse than complete neophytes because they 'll freeze up when trying to do the most basic things that they know well in terms of 'how ' with a different set of actions.Those of us who 've learned more than one OS or used learned several differently designed programs for doing the same things have an advantage not often appreciated by program designers and especially by those such as the Google group trying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Behavioral momentum*** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral\_momentum [wikipedia.org] is formally a term describing the quantification of resistance to change in opposition with the pressure to change.
The latter is phrased in terms of reinforcement because it was comes from the efforts to quantify the component phenomena in learning theory as laid out by Skinner.
It implies any and all sources of resistance be considered as a single force.Informally, the 'resistance(s) to change' suffices when applying it to a situation such as in TFA.
The PC World article correctly though accidentally calls it an 'anxiety'.
It could be described in terms of cognitive dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive\_dissonance [wikipedia.org] but we're in the informal section now, so you can read the first line and see that it's an 'uncomfortable feeling' regarding (among other possibilities) 'awareness of one's behavior'.There are few instances when one is more aware of one's behavior than when one is asked to perform a task in a way different from an accustomed manner.
Being so aware of it is part and parcel with the awareness required to perform in an unfamiliar way and with the (performance, not separation, as per TFA) anxiety caused by the enforced change.
That's an object summary of cognitive dissonance in action.The greybeards out there may recall when they first encountered a mouse/GUI interface.
Many noted that CLI worked just fine if not better.
(You youngsters can ask them -- you know how they love to talk about the old days.
) Making the switch was not that difficult because the new way was very easy to understand and so required little thought.
But more importantly it was easier because it was very different and so didn't require unthinking an old way and new-thinking a new way without encountering as much anxiety provoking instances of potential or actual mistake making.With the above we can then approach the nature of the problem in TFA and so the solution.The average IT consumer knows little about what they're causing to happen other than pushing certain buttons causes certain things to happen that they need to happen in order to do their job.
Making this easy for them to do is fine for getting them working quickly.
But getting them working efficiently quickly does not teach them what they are doing.
F'rinstance, if they want to move a section of words from one place to another, they don't even have to know what the names given to control-X and control-V are, they just know it does the job (and these days it's unlikely even you out there ever used scissors or razor blades and mucilage to cut and paste anything).Along with the familiarity with the procedure, particularly without a grasp of the underlying mechanisms, and prior to any attempt to alter the procedure, comes behavioral momentum.
People get used to doing something a certain way and *with a certain level of confidence*.
Now, ask them to do exactly the same thing a different way.
You've knocked them back down the front of the learning curve without the ladder of basic understanding.Had they been taught how to do the same thing more than one way, and told what it is they're causing to happen, they could find that ladder.
Trapped as they are though, they're aware of difficulty and incapability and little else.
Anyone who's tried to teach someone a different method knows about that 'and little else'.
It often seems they can't hear your instruction and can't get their head talking to their hands.
They're frequently worse than complete neophytes because they'll freeze up when trying to do the most basic things that they know well in terms of 'how' with a different set of actions.Those of us who've learned more than one OS or used learned several differently designed programs for doing the same things have an advantage not often appreciated by program designers and especially by those such as the Google group trying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667351</id>
	<title>True, and it won't be an easy fix</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1247414400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are lots of problems with exchange/outlook but the fact is, the feature set is pretty complete. Microsoft did a lot of <a href="http://www.jwz.org/doc/groupware.html" title="jwz.org">boring work</a> [jwz.org] to make lots of things happen, like the ability to invite people to meetings, collect responses, send updates when they get changed, deal with timezones, etc etc etc. People who rely on it (and there are literally millions) would really have their work impacted by not having all those features.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are lots of problems with exchange/outlook but the fact is , the feature set is pretty complete .
Microsoft did a lot of boring work [ jwz.org ] to make lots of things happen , like the ability to invite people to meetings , collect responses , send updates when they get changed , deal with timezones , etc etc etc .
People who rely on it ( and there are literally millions ) would really have their work impacted by not having all those features .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are lots of problems with exchange/outlook but the fact is, the feature set is pretty complete.
Microsoft did a lot of boring work [jwz.org] to make lots of things happen, like the ability to invite people to meetings, collect responses, send updates when they get changed, deal with timezones, etc etc etc.
People who rely on it (and there are literally millions) would really have their work impacted by not having all those features.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668321</id>
	<title>Re:Secrecy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247423640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also, I'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email.</p></div></blockquote><p>Then read the Google mail <a href="http://mail.google.com/mail/help/about\_privacy.html#data\_retention" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">data retention policy</a> [google.com]. It's pretty brief.</p><p>It's not very specific for the public version of GMail, but if you're interested in corporate GMail they can give you more specifics.</p><blockquote><div><p>I know I wouldn't want to have my company give up control of it's email to Google (5000 person company).</p></div></blockquote><p>Google has 20,222 full-time employees worldwide. <a href="http://investor.google.com/releases/2008Q4\_google\_earnings.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">source</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , I 'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email.Then read the Google mail data retention policy [ google.com ] .
It 's pretty brief.It 's not very specific for the public version of GMail , but if you 're interested in corporate GMail they can give you more specifics.I know I would n't want to have my company give up control of it 's email to Google ( 5000 person company ) .Google has 20,222 full-time employees worldwide .
source [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, I'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email.Then read the Google mail data retention policy [google.com].
It's pretty brief.It's not very specific for the public version of GMail, but if you're interested in corporate GMail they can give you more specifics.I know I wouldn't want to have my company give up control of it's email to Google (5000 person company).Google has 20,222 full-time employees worldwide.
source [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669239</id>
	<title>Patriot Act is the Dealbreaker...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247431800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since Google may store our data on servers residing in the US, and since those US servers are subject to the Patriot Act, my company will never seriously consider the switch. The Patriot Act permits the US gov't to peruse/copy/pilfer our proprietary data, and our customers' private info, at will, without notice, and with punishment for anyone who told us this had occurred.</p><p>We'd love to switch to Google Apps, for a whole host of reasons, but it would be extraordinarily irresponsible to our customer who entrust us with their personal and private info and to our shareholders, who expect better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since Google may store our data on servers residing in the US , and since those US servers are subject to the Patriot Act , my company will never seriously consider the switch .
The Patriot Act permits the US gov't to peruse/copy/pilfer our proprietary data , and our customers ' private info , at will , without notice , and with punishment for anyone who told us this had occurred.We 'd love to switch to Google Apps , for a whole host of reasons , but it would be extraordinarily irresponsible to our customer who entrust us with their personal and private info and to our shareholders , who expect better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since Google may store our data on servers residing in the US, and since those US servers are subject to the Patriot Act, my company will never seriously consider the switch.
The Patriot Act permits the US gov't to peruse/copy/pilfer our proprietary data, and our customers' private info, at will, without notice, and with punishment for anyone who told us this had occurred.We'd love to switch to Google Apps, for a whole host of reasons, but it would be extraordinarily irresponsible to our customer who entrust us with their personal and private info and to our shareholders, who expect better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668875</id>
	<title>Blame it on the rain!  Conversion tools suck.</title>
	<author>michaelcole</author>
	<datestamp>1247428740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just migrated from Gmail to Google Apps, and it sucked.  There are no decent migration tools out there.  You think that Google could migrate between it's own two platforms.  I couldn't move my email rules (filters) automatically and have about 80.

Anyways, Outlook-Exchange-Sharepoint is just a better product.  I use Google cause it's free.  Deal with it.

Mike</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just migrated from Gmail to Google Apps , and it sucked .
There are no decent migration tools out there .
You think that Google could migrate between it 's own two platforms .
I could n't move my email rules ( filters ) automatically and have about 80 .
Anyways , Outlook-Exchange-Sharepoint is just a better product .
I use Google cause it 's free .
Deal with it .
Mike</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just migrated from Gmail to Google Apps, and it sucked.
There are no decent migration tools out there.
You think that Google could migrate between it's own two platforms.
I couldn't move my email rules (filters) automatically and have about 80.
Anyways, Outlook-Exchange-Sharepoint is just a better product.
I use Google cause it's free.
Deal with it.
Mike</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271</id>
	<title>Secrecy</title>
	<author>Necroman</author>
	<datestamp>1247413620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email.  There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google.  Also, I'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email.  Outlook allows some backup of emails at the IT level of all company emails (included deleted ones).</p><p>I know I wouldn't want to have my company give up control of it's email to Google (5000 person company).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it 's more about letting another company handle your company 's email .
There is so much critical information about a company in their email , why would they trust it to any external company , even if it is Google .
Also , I 'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email .
Outlook allows some backup of emails at the IT level of all company emails ( included deleted ones ) .I know I would n't want to have my company give up control of it 's email to Google ( 5000 person company ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it's more about letting another company handle your company's email.
There is so much critical information about a company in their email, why would they trust it to any external company, even if it is Google.
Also, I'm unfamiliar with how Google handles data retention of email.
Outlook allows some backup of emails at the IT level of all company emails (included deleted ones).I know I wouldn't want to have my company give up control of it's email to Google (5000 person company).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668285</id>
	<title>Google Apps Sync for Microsoft Outlook</title>
	<author>JoshRoss</author>
	<datestamp>1247423220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Now businesses can run Microsoft Outlook on Google Apps instead of Microsoft Exchange, so they can achieve the cost savings, security and reliability of Google Apps while employees use the interface they prefer for email, contacts and calendar."

<a href="http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook\_sync.html" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook\_sync.html</a> [google.com]

You just have to cough-up some cash for the Premier Edition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Now businesses can run Microsoft Outlook on Google Apps instead of Microsoft Exchange , so they can achieve the cost savings , security and reliability of Google Apps while employees use the interface they prefer for email , contacts and calendar .
" http : //www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook \ _sync.html [ google.com ] You just have to cough-up some cash for the Premier Edition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Now businesses can run Microsoft Outlook on Google Apps instead of Microsoft Exchange, so they can achieve the cost savings, security and reliability of Google Apps while employees use the interface they prefer for email, contacts and calendar.
"

http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/outlook\_sync.html [google.com]

You just have to cough-up some cash for the Premier Edition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667509</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247416080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.</p></div><p>Once I can boot into a new Linux install and have my four monitors come up without having to manually edit files and search forums for answers....then you can call Linux a proper operating system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.Once I can boot into a new Linux install and have my four monitors come up without having to manually edit files and search forums for answers....then you can call Linux a proper operating system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows inertia keeping people from using a proper operating system.Once I can boot into a new Linux install and have my four monitors come up without having to manually edit files and search forums for answers....then you can call Linux a proper operating system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805</id>
	<title>Agreed - Too Much of a Paradigm Shift</title>
	<author>vinn</author>
	<datestamp>1247418360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, you'd pretty much have to pry Outlook out of my cold dead fingers before switching to Google's apps.  See, it's not the software, it's the way I work.  Outlook just so happens to fit the style of how I like to work, organize my my stuff, organize appointments, and has some nice integration points with tools I need, like CRM.
</p><p>
(Note: I'm not a Microsoft fanboy.  I've been using Linux since 1995 and my first mail client was mh.)
</p><p>
Google wants me to rethink how I work in order to use their tools.  I don't have cute little folders, I have to deal with "labels".  I want filters to put mail into folders, not labels, because I don't want to deal with seeing the new mail in my Inbox that I know is irrelevant; I want the Facebook mail in a Facebook folder I can ignore all week long.  Searching isn't necessarily as nice as sorting because sometimes my brain might remember someone's initials, but not their full last name.  When I want to see all the "K's", I want to see all the K's.  All in all, I find it too foreign of a way to work to be truly comfortable.  However, I do use it for my personal mail.
</p><p>
By the way, the argument about using them for hosted services isn't a showstopper for our business.  We have 2 Exchange servers and I fully intend on moving them to some kind of hosted solution around the time Exchange 2010 comes out.  We have 200 mail accounts or so and I don't really have a problem trading off the amount of administration for someone else taking care of the data.
</p><p>
PS.  The killer app for me for the year is Google Voice.  It's going to change how I work and I love it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , you 'd pretty much have to pry Outlook out of my cold dead fingers before switching to Google 's apps .
See , it 's not the software , it 's the way I work .
Outlook just so happens to fit the style of how I like to work , organize my my stuff , organize appointments , and has some nice integration points with tools I need , like CRM .
( Note : I 'm not a Microsoft fanboy .
I 've been using Linux since 1995 and my first mail client was mh .
) Google wants me to rethink how I work in order to use their tools .
I do n't have cute little folders , I have to deal with " labels " .
I want filters to put mail into folders , not labels , because I do n't want to deal with seeing the new mail in my Inbox that I know is irrelevant ; I want the Facebook mail in a Facebook folder I can ignore all week long .
Searching is n't necessarily as nice as sorting because sometimes my brain might remember someone 's initials , but not their full last name .
When I want to see all the " K 's " , I want to see all the K 's .
All in all , I find it too foreign of a way to work to be truly comfortable .
However , I do use it for my personal mail .
By the way , the argument about using them for hosted services is n't a showstopper for our business .
We have 2 Exchange servers and I fully intend on moving them to some kind of hosted solution around the time Exchange 2010 comes out .
We have 200 mail accounts or so and I do n't really have a problem trading off the amount of administration for someone else taking care of the data .
PS. The killer app for me for the year is Google Voice .
It 's going to change how I work and I love it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, you'd pretty much have to pry Outlook out of my cold dead fingers before switching to Google's apps.
See, it's not the software, it's the way I work.
Outlook just so happens to fit the style of how I like to work, organize my my stuff, organize appointments, and has some nice integration points with tools I need, like CRM.
(Note: I'm not a Microsoft fanboy.
I've been using Linux since 1995 and my first mail client was mh.
)

Google wants me to rethink how I work in order to use their tools.
I don't have cute little folders, I have to deal with "labels".
I want filters to put mail into folders, not labels, because I don't want to deal with seeing the new mail in my Inbox that I know is irrelevant; I want the Facebook mail in a Facebook folder I can ignore all week long.
Searching isn't necessarily as nice as sorting because sometimes my brain might remember someone's initials, but not their full last name.
When I want to see all the "K's", I want to see all the K's.
All in all, I find it too foreign of a way to work to be truly comfortable.
However, I do use it for my personal mail.
By the way, the argument about using them for hosted services isn't a showstopper for our business.
We have 2 Exchange servers and I fully intend on moving them to some kind of hosted solution around the time Exchange 2010 comes out.
We have 200 mail accounts or so and I don't really have a problem trading off the amount of administration for someone else taking care of the data.
PS.  The killer app for me for the year is Google Voice.
It's going to change how I work and I love it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667519</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1247416200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly. Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.</p></div><p>Not to mention:<br>2. First contact with reality, your customers will think other missing features are important.<br>3. Get a revenue stream going, don't squeeze for profit just realize money = developers.</p><p>It's like many other not-so-great standards, just by getting enough money and momentum behind it you can fix it later. Just run with it and eventually you'll get to where everyone links to youtube because everyone links to youtube. The same really goes for software, you want what's popular because that's what is easy to find people for, easy to find solutions for, basicly finding out how to do things differently every time is hard. I'm sure many here have thought "Sigh, that's the Windows solution. Where's the Mac/Linux solution???".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess the bottom line is , if you are coming out with a new product , you do n't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly .
Then it really does n't matter much what comes later , you 're in the money.Not to mention : 2 .
First contact with reality , your customers will think other missing features are important.3 .
Get a revenue stream going , do n't squeeze for profit just realize money = developers.It 's like many other not-so-great standards , just by getting enough money and momentum behind it you can fix it later .
Just run with it and eventually you 'll get to where everyone links to youtube because everyone links to youtube .
The same really goes for software , you want what 's popular because that 's what is easy to find people for , easy to find solutions for , basicly finding out how to do things differently every time is hard .
I 'm sure many here have thought " Sigh , that 's the Windows solution .
Where 's the Mac/Linux solution ? ? ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly.
Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.Not to mention:2.
First contact with reality, your customers will think other missing features are important.3.
Get a revenue stream going, don't squeeze for profit just realize money = developers.It's like many other not-so-great standards, just by getting enough money and momentum behind it you can fix it later.
Just run with it and eventually you'll get to where everyone links to youtube because everyone links to youtube.
The same really goes for software, you want what's popular because that's what is easy to find people for, easy to find solutions for, basicly finding out how to do things differently every time is hard.
I'm sure many here have thought "Sigh, that's the Windows solution.
Where's the Mac/Linux solution???
".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667735</id>
	<title>Re:Zimbra instead</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1247417820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zimbra is a steaming pile of shit.   Sorry, I hate exchange, I hate Outlook, but Zimbra doesn't even come close to comparing to the Outlook/Exchange combination.</p><p>Integrating with Outlook doesn't mean shit.  GMail 'integrates' with Outlook.  SEAMLESS integration is what users expect.  Zimbra simply works differently, and differently enough that its freaking annoying.</p><p>While I realize MS produces bloated crap code, when you state 'You can put 2x the users on Zimbra' then you need to stop and think for a second why<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Why?  Because its not providing the same feature list.</p><p>I too want an Outlook/Exchange replacement combo that doesn't suck ass, but Zimbra isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zimbra is a steaming pile of shit .
Sorry , I hate exchange , I hate Outlook , but Zimbra does n't even come close to comparing to the Outlook/Exchange combination.Integrating with Outlook does n't mean shit .
GMail 'integrates ' with Outlook .
SEAMLESS integration is what users expect .
Zimbra simply works differently , and differently enough that its freaking annoying.While I realize MS produces bloated crap code , when you state 'You can put 2x the users on Zimbra ' then you need to stop and think for a second why ... Why ? Because its not providing the same feature list.I too want an Outlook/Exchange replacement combo that does n't suck ass , but Zimbra is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zimbra is a steaming pile of shit.
Sorry, I hate exchange, I hate Outlook, but Zimbra doesn't even come close to comparing to the Outlook/Exchange combination.Integrating with Outlook doesn't mean shit.
GMail 'integrates' with Outlook.
SEAMLESS integration is what users expect.
Zimbra simply works differently, and differently enough that its freaking annoying.While I realize MS produces bloated crap code, when you state 'You can put 2x the users on Zimbra' then you need to stop and think for a second why ... Why?  Because its not providing the same feature list.I too want an Outlook/Exchange replacement combo that doesn't suck ass, but Zimbra isn't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669063</id>
	<title>Re:Not willing to give up functionality??</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1247430240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, saying that nothing but Exchange has the features we want is not the same as saying we can't be bothered to learn how to use something else.</p><p>Somebody else mentioned that sharing a folder (with subfolders) is a pain in the ass with GMail.  That's a great example.  I've done it with Outlook/Exchange; at an ISP I used to work for, the abuse@ mail came to a shared inbox that several people had access to, and we could do things like mark messages as read/unread, create temporary folders to sort certain messages into, etc. and everyone on my team could see what everyone else was doing.  This is really simple functionality; how easy is it to set that up with your mail server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , saying that nothing but Exchange has the features we want is not the same as saying we ca n't be bothered to learn how to use something else.Somebody else mentioned that sharing a folder ( with subfolders ) is a pain in the ass with GMail .
That 's a great example .
I 've done it with Outlook/Exchange ; at an ISP I used to work for , the abuse @ mail came to a shared inbox that several people had access to , and we could do things like mark messages as read/unread , create temporary folders to sort certain messages into , etc .
and everyone on my team could see what everyone else was doing .
This is really simple functionality ; how easy is it to set that up with your mail server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, saying that nothing but Exchange has the features we want is not the same as saying we can't be bothered to learn how to use something else.Somebody else mentioned that sharing a folder (with subfolders) is a pain in the ass with GMail.
That's a great example.
I've done it with Outlook/Exchange; at an ISP I used to work for, the abuse@ mail came to a shared inbox that several people had access to, and we could do things like mark messages as read/unread, create temporary folders to sort certain messages into, etc.
and everyone on my team could see what everyone else was doing.
This is really simple functionality; how easy is it to set that up with your mail server?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667199</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667471</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft shell game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247415720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The difference here is the level of training required. For example, our company does a 1 hour required training for folks moving from XP to Vista. This is basically to show them the (easily mastered) differences in UI and to introduce them to the new features that folks don't always pick up and run with on their own (like the integrated search, especially for the start menu and the different - but better - way to connect to VPN).<br> <br>Switching them to a whole new OS like OSX or Red Hat or something would be a drastically different training program and would NOT be some little 1 hour overview course. The reality is that the training would be a much bigger burden - but we can't even look at doing that because the number and complexity of Line Of Business applications would cost so much to rewrite (or in many cases attempt to cajole our vendors into rewriting).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference here is the level of training required .
For example , our company does a 1 hour required training for folks moving from XP to Vista .
This is basically to show them the ( easily mastered ) differences in UI and to introduce them to the new features that folks do n't always pick up and run with on their own ( like the integrated search , especially for the start menu and the different - but better - way to connect to VPN ) .
Switching them to a whole new OS like OSX or Red Hat or something would be a drastically different training program and would NOT be some little 1 hour overview course .
The reality is that the training would be a much bigger burden - but we ca n't even look at doing that because the number and complexity of Line Of Business applications would cost so much to rewrite ( or in many cases attempt to cajole our vendors into rewriting ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference here is the level of training required.
For example, our company does a 1 hour required training for folks moving from XP to Vista.
This is basically to show them the (easily mastered) differences in UI and to introduce them to the new features that folks don't always pick up and run with on their own (like the integrated search, especially for the start menu and the different - but better - way to connect to VPN).
Switching them to a whole new OS like OSX or Red Hat or something would be a drastically different training program and would NOT be some little 1 hour overview course.
The reality is that the training would be a much bigger burden - but we can't even look at doing that because the number and complexity of Line Of Business applications would cost so much to rewrite (or in many cases attempt to cajole our vendors into rewriting).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>smartin</author>
	<datestamp>1247414940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would give up my children to be free of that combo. Not one of those tools works well either by itself or together. Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.</p><p>Can't wait for Google Wave to be available hopefully it will crush Outhouse/Exchange.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would give up my children to be free of that combo .
Not one of those tools works well either by itself or together .
Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.Ca n't wait for Google Wave to be available hopefully it will crush Outhouse/Exchange .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would give up my children to be free of that combo.
Not one of those tools works well either by itself or together.
Sharepoint in particular has no value what so ever and Outlook and Office are steaming piles of shit.Can't wait for Google Wave to be available hopefully it will crush Outhouse/Exchange.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401</id>
	<title>Not the *users* who are inertial</title>
	<author>MaggieL</author>
	<datestamp>1247415000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is smoking crack on one point: It's not the *users* who are inertial. It's the  Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts (MCSE) who run their IT operations, who are deeply invested in all the crap they had to learn to keep Domain Controllers and Exchange Servers running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is smoking crack on one point : It 's not the * users * who are inertial .
It 's the Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts ( MCSE ) who run their IT operations , who are deeply invested in all the crap they had to learn to keep Domain Controllers and Exchange Servers running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is smoking crack on one point: It's not the *users* who are inertial.
It's the  Minesweeper Champion Solitaire Experts (MCSE) who run their IT operations, who are deeply invested in all the crap they had to learn to keep Domain Controllers and Exchange Servers running.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671691</id>
	<title>Re:Happened here with a different solution</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247410020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We also dont support any of the sharing features via Outlook, and all new training material is for Zimbra and not Outlook. We also chose a few high profile individuals and helped them become more efficient with Zimbra to help spead the word. We still have about 50\% of the user base on Outlook, POPing off of Zimbra.</i></p><p>Look at the full cost for Zimbra pricing. It's not that far from Exchange.</p><p>Any reason you're using pop instead of imap with outlook? You get more features with imap. There also is a zimbra connector plugin for outlook.</p><p>Zimbra is nice, until you try to do something Zimbra doesn't want you to. Try copying a message from one folder to another. You can't, because Zimbra thinks you shouldn't do that (adds clutter). Well, sometimes I want to do that.</p><p>There also is a Zimbra connector for Blackberry Enterprise Server. It tries to emulate a MAPI (Exchange) email server, but not very well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We also dont support any of the sharing features via Outlook , and all new training material is for Zimbra and not Outlook .
We also chose a few high profile individuals and helped them become more efficient with Zimbra to help spead the word .
We still have about 50 \ % of the user base on Outlook , POPing off of Zimbra.Look at the full cost for Zimbra pricing .
It 's not that far from Exchange.Any reason you 're using pop instead of imap with outlook ?
You get more features with imap .
There also is a zimbra connector plugin for outlook.Zimbra is nice , until you try to do something Zimbra does n't want you to .
Try copying a message from one folder to another .
You ca n't , because Zimbra thinks you should n't do that ( adds clutter ) .
Well , sometimes I want to do that.There also is a Zimbra connector for Blackberry Enterprise Server .
It tries to emulate a MAPI ( Exchange ) email server , but not very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We also dont support any of the sharing features via Outlook, and all new training material is for Zimbra and not Outlook.
We also chose a few high profile individuals and helped them become more efficient with Zimbra to help spead the word.
We still have about 50\% of the user base on Outlook, POPing off of Zimbra.Look at the full cost for Zimbra pricing.
It's not that far from Exchange.Any reason you're using pop instead of imap with outlook?
You get more features with imap.
There also is a zimbra connector plugin for outlook.Zimbra is nice, until you try to do something Zimbra doesn't want you to.
Try copying a message from one folder to another.
You can't, because Zimbra thinks you shouldn't do that (adds clutter).
Well, sometimes I want to do that.There also is a Zimbra connector for Blackberry Enterprise Server.
It tries to emulate a MAPI (Exchange) email server, but not very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667585</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667427</id>
	<title>Re:Too much in too little time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247415300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they will find is that earning a good reputation through customer satisfaction is the way to win over customers. Trying to bowl them over with competing products is almost never effective.</p></div><p>Yeah like Google really gives noone a choice of search engines. And people are forced to use google because... D'UH.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google Search didn't kill Yahoo! search in one fell swoop.<br>Gmail didn't become dominant (and it still isn't) against Hotmail/Live Mail right away.<br>Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine, but still has stiff competition from Yahoo! Maps and MapQuest.</p></div><p>And since when did Google set out to 'kill' Yahoo?</p><p>Gmail &gt; Hotmail/Live/whatever it is now.<br>Yahoo has maps? MapQuest.. never heard of...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they will find is that earning a good reputation through customer satisfaction is the way to win over customers .
Trying to bowl them over with competing products is almost never effective.Yeah like Google really gives noone a choice of search engines .
And people are forced to use google because... D'UH.Google Search did n't kill Yahoo !
search in one fell swoop.Gmail did n't become dominant ( and it still is n't ) against Hotmail/Live Mail right away.Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine , but still has stiff competition from Yahoo !
Maps and MapQuest.And since when did Google set out to 'kill ' Yahoo ? Gmail &gt; Hotmail/Live/whatever it is now.Yahoo has maps ?
MapQuest.. never heard of.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they will find is that earning a good reputation through customer satisfaction is the way to win over customers.
Trying to bowl them over with competing products is almost never effective.Yeah like Google really gives noone a choice of search engines.
And people are forced to use google because... D'UH.Google Search didn't kill Yahoo!
search in one fell swoop.Gmail didn't become dominant (and it still isn't) against Hotmail/Live Mail right away.Google Maps was able to leverage the Google Search engine, but still has stiff competition from Yahoo!
Maps and MapQuest.And since when did Google set out to 'kill' Yahoo?Gmail &gt; Hotmail/Live/whatever it is now.Yahoo has maps?
MapQuest.. never heard of...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668249</id>
	<title>Mod parent up</title>
	<author>Shandalar</author>
	<datestamp>1247422680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People like to bitch on Slashdot that "Office is a steaming pile of crap" but these people are ridiculous.  How many have tried to use both Office and Google Apps for real work?  Google Apps sucks.  It'll get better, but at the moment it is far behind Office.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People like to bitch on Slashdot that " Office is a steaming pile of crap " but these people are ridiculous .
How many have tried to use both Office and Google Apps for real work ?
Google Apps sucks .
It 'll get better , but at the moment it is far behind Office .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People like to bitch on Slashdot that "Office is a steaming pile of crap" but these people are ridiculous.
How many have tried to use both Office and Google Apps for real work?
Google Apps sucks.
It'll get better, but at the moment it is far behind Office.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667811</id>
	<title>Re:Saw this first hand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247418360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>true. they should have an outlook "skin" for google apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>true .
they should have an outlook " skin " for google apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>true.
they should have an outlook "skin" for google apps.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667733</id>
	<title>A proper OS just won't do</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247417820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>when you've got a pooper OS</p><p>I thank you</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>when you 've got a pooper OSI thank you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when you've got a pooper OSI thank you</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28707613</id>
	<title>Note to Google, Inc.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247648940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear Google, I have not adopted your "equivalent" software packages to replace Outlook and Office. Why?</p><p>1. Word processing and e-mail, let's be honest, are not inherently work. They are meta-work at best. You only use these programs to support other work. The point is the end, not the means. Did I successfully understand the e-mail or document content? If yes, no further femto-slices of brain power should be dedicated to the matter. These utility apps are not shiny toys, they are not fun to use, they are and should be boring and invisible. Outlook and Office are invisible to me and are not non-functioning, therefore I have absolutely NO motivation to replace, and in fact I have an interest in not expending resources to make unnecessary changes.<br>2. You haven't sold people on the concept that your Google apps are better, obviously. Why? Are they better or are they just the same boring app that works a little differently?</p><p>Maybe the main factor holding back Google Apps adoption is that Google Apps aren't needed, therefore there's no demand.</p><p>Google, beware: you WILL get pushback when trying to suggest something that doesn't make sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear Google , I have not adopted your " equivalent " software packages to replace Outlook and Office .
Why ? 1. Word processing and e-mail , let 's be honest , are not inherently work .
They are meta-work at best .
You only use these programs to support other work .
The point is the end , not the means .
Did I successfully understand the e-mail or document content ?
If yes , no further femto-slices of brain power should be dedicated to the matter .
These utility apps are not shiny toys , they are not fun to use , they are and should be boring and invisible .
Outlook and Office are invisible to me and are not non-functioning , therefore I have absolutely NO motivation to replace , and in fact I have an interest in not expending resources to make unnecessary changes.2 .
You have n't sold people on the concept that your Google apps are better , obviously .
Why ? Are they better or are they just the same boring app that works a little differently ? Maybe the main factor holding back Google Apps adoption is that Google Apps are n't needed , therefore there 's no demand.Google , beware : you WILL get pushback when trying to suggest something that does n't make sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear Google, I have not adopted your "equivalent" software packages to replace Outlook and Office.
Why?1. Word processing and e-mail, let's be honest, are not inherently work.
They are meta-work at best.
You only use these programs to support other work.
The point is the end, not the means.
Did I successfully understand the e-mail or document content?
If yes, no further femto-slices of brain power should be dedicated to the matter.
These utility apps are not shiny toys, they are not fun to use, they are and should be boring and invisible.
Outlook and Office are invisible to me and are not non-functioning, therefore I have absolutely NO motivation to replace, and in fact I have an interest in not expending resources to make unnecessary changes.2.
You haven't sold people on the concept that your Google apps are better, obviously.
Why? Are they better or are they just the same boring app that works a little differently?Maybe the main factor holding back Google Apps adoption is that Google Apps aren't needed, therefore there's no demand.Google, beware: you WILL get pushback when trying to suggest something that doesn't make sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669545</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>bpprice</author>
	<datestamp>1247391420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Interesting. I have never, ever seen a SharePoint setup that worked for users very well, and seen a high abandonment rate. I would like to see what it is "supposed" to look like.

My current company's SharePoint site is a disorganized disaster that frankly serves very little purpose, really. The higher-ups try to use it, but it is rarely up-to-date or relevant. And the search is a mess. Count me as "don't get it" about any positive value to SharePoint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting .
I have never , ever seen a SharePoint setup that worked for users very well , and seen a high abandonment rate .
I would like to see what it is " supposed " to look like .
My current company 's SharePoint site is a disorganized disaster that frankly serves very little purpose , really .
The higher-ups try to use it , but it is rarely up-to-date or relevant .
And the search is a mess .
Count me as " do n't get it " about any positive value to SharePoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting.
I have never, ever seen a SharePoint setup that worked for users very well, and seen a high abandonment rate.
I would like to see what it is "supposed" to look like.
My current company's SharePoint site is a disorganized disaster that frankly serves very little purpose, really.
The higher-ups try to use it, but it is rarely up-to-date or relevant.
And the search is a mess.
Count me as "don't get it" about any positive value to SharePoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668157</id>
	<title>Re:In other news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247421480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an unrealistic argument. If anything, it's Windows inertia amongst hardware manufacturers that keep Linux away from the desktop. They don't provide drivers for Linux, and Linux doesn't want binary blobs, so hardware support for Linux lags behinds Windows. Moreover, Linux just isn't a good operation system for the average user. Computers are ubiquitous nowadays. It's no longer the case that only fanboys should be able to use computers. Windows works. Once in a while, it breaks, but generally, it works, and the average guy can figure it out. Linux requires a bunch of file editing and command lines just to do mundane tasks. You want to apt-get a package? Well, you have to edit the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.conf to put in the proper servers before you apt-get it. The user interface is inconsistent. And that's how things are <i>supposed</i> to work in Linux. Imagine when stuff breaks.</p><p>I use Linux on my netbook, FreeBSD-based FreeNAS on my NAS, and a Linux Apache server. I also have Windows Vista x64 and Windows 7 RC1 x64. For a desktop, in my experience, Windows 7 x64 probably offers the best experience as far as things being intuitive, and just working. (I haven't used MacOS, though.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an unrealistic argument .
If anything , it 's Windows inertia amongst hardware manufacturers that keep Linux away from the desktop .
They do n't provide drivers for Linux , and Linux does n't want binary blobs , so hardware support for Linux lags behinds Windows .
Moreover , Linux just is n't a good operation system for the average user .
Computers are ubiquitous nowadays .
It 's no longer the case that only fanboys should be able to use computers .
Windows works .
Once in a while , it breaks , but generally , it works , and the average guy can figure it out .
Linux requires a bunch of file editing and command lines just to do mundane tasks .
You want to apt-get a package ?
Well , you have to edit the .conf to put in the proper servers before you apt-get it .
The user interface is inconsistent .
And that 's how things are supposed to work in Linux .
Imagine when stuff breaks.I use Linux on my netbook , FreeBSD-based FreeNAS on my NAS , and a Linux Apache server .
I also have Windows Vista x64 and Windows 7 RC1 x64 .
For a desktop , in my experience , Windows 7 x64 probably offers the best experience as far as things being intuitive , and just working .
( I have n't used MacOS , though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an unrealistic argument.
If anything, it's Windows inertia amongst hardware manufacturers that keep Linux away from the desktop.
They don't provide drivers for Linux, and Linux doesn't want binary blobs, so hardware support for Linux lags behinds Windows.
Moreover, Linux just isn't a good operation system for the average user.
Computers are ubiquitous nowadays.
It's no longer the case that only fanboys should be able to use computers.
Windows works.
Once in a while, it breaks, but generally, it works, and the average guy can figure it out.
Linux requires a bunch of file editing and command lines just to do mundane tasks.
You want to apt-get a package?
Well, you have to edit the .conf to put in the proper servers before you apt-get it.
The user interface is inconsistent.
And that's how things are supposed to work in Linux.
Imagine when stuff breaks.I use Linux on my netbook, FreeBSD-based FreeNAS on my NAS, and a Linux Apache server.
I also have Windows Vista x64 and Windows 7 RC1 x64.
For a desktop, in my experience, Windows 7 x64 probably offers the best experience as far as things being intuitive, and just working.
(I haven't used MacOS, though.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668303</id>
	<title>Email Organization and workflow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247423460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the issue is that people have worked out a system for organizing emails within 50+ active projects and manage a todo list by drag and drop emails into the task list. They are used to having most things on their laptop, so they don't need to be internet connected to read/reply to emails.</p><p>Then there's the contact lists that everyone lovingly creates over years with almost every field complete. IME, export and import never completely works. Fields are always lost.</p><p>Journal?</p><p>The webmail solutions simply don't work **exactly** the same and fit into the work flow people have created over years.</p><p>At my new company, I forced a different solution on everyone. We are 9 months into using it and things have settled. I still hear minor complaints, but everyone is resolved that the costs for Exchange and supporting MS stuff isn't worth it.</p><p>I failed to kill off MS-Office.  We continually hit slight formatting issues even within the same version of MS-Word. OpenOffice formatting differences screw with pagination.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the issue is that people have worked out a system for organizing emails within 50 + active projects and manage a todo list by drag and drop emails into the task list .
They are used to having most things on their laptop , so they do n't need to be internet connected to read/reply to emails.Then there 's the contact lists that everyone lovingly creates over years with almost every field complete .
IME , export and import never completely works .
Fields are always lost.Journal ? The webmail solutions simply do n't work * * exactly * * the same and fit into the work flow people have created over years.At my new company , I forced a different solution on everyone .
We are 9 months into using it and things have settled .
I still hear minor complaints , but everyone is resolved that the costs for Exchange and supporting MS stuff is n't worth it.I failed to kill off MS-Office .
We continually hit slight formatting issues even within the same version of MS-Word .
OpenOffice formatting differences screw with pagination .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the issue is that people have worked out a system for organizing emails within 50+ active projects and manage a todo list by drag and drop emails into the task list.
They are used to having most things on their laptop, so they don't need to be internet connected to read/reply to emails.Then there's the contact lists that everyone lovingly creates over years with almost every field complete.
IME, export and import never completely works.
Fields are always lost.Journal?The webmail solutions simply don't work **exactly** the same and fit into the work flow people have created over years.At my new company, I forced a different solution on everyone.
We are 9 months into using it and things have settled.
I still hear minor complaints, but everyone is resolved that the costs for Exchange and supporting MS stuff isn't worth it.I failed to kill off MS-Office.
We continually hit slight formatting issues even within the same version of MS-Word.
OpenOffice formatting differences screw with pagination.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667357</id>
	<title>Re:Too much in too little time</title>
	<author>Lennie</author>
	<datestamp>1247414460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is, because a lot of their services are offered free and they are looking for more profitable businessmodels. Advertisments is their only really profit machine at this point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is , because a lot of their services are offered free and they are looking for more profitable businessmodels .
Advertisments is their only really profit machine at this point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is, because a lot of their services are offered free and they are looking for more profitable businessmodels.
Advertisments is their only really profit machine at this point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28681667</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247518680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the real issue. I have consulted for small businesses. When (inevitably), Outlook burped and misplaced 100\% of their email AGAIN (it happens to them every month or two), I suggested they try Thunderbird. Note that they didn't have Exchange server and never used any feature of Outlook except reading and sending email. They DO use their inboxes as a history and todo list and typically keep important contact info in emails in their inbox (or occasiobnally another folder).</p><p>Their conclusion: Thunderbird is 'too hard' to use 'because the buttons look different'.  So, in order to not have to get used to different icons, they'd rather lose all of their contact information customer history, todo lists, etc and start over every few months!</p><p>So I had them sign that they were staying with Outlook against advice and fully expected to lose all of their emails as a result. Next time they lost their email and wanted to complain, I sent a copy of the document to them. They stopped yelling then. I recovered much of the email but lost the metadata like read or replied to (by importing the mail into thunderbird and pushing it to an IMAP server). They still wanted to stay with Outlook.</p><p>I'm convinced that the best move Apple could make to expand the popularity of the iPhone even more is have it randomly deliver painful shocks and scramble the contacts list. People seem to like it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the real issue .
I have consulted for small businesses .
When ( inevitably ) , Outlook burped and misplaced 100 \ % of their email AGAIN ( it happens to them every month or two ) , I suggested they try Thunderbird .
Note that they did n't have Exchange server and never used any feature of Outlook except reading and sending email .
They DO use their inboxes as a history and todo list and typically keep important contact info in emails in their inbox ( or occasiobnally another folder ) .Their conclusion : Thunderbird is 'too hard ' to use 'because the buttons look different' .
So , in order to not have to get used to different icons , they 'd rather lose all of their contact information customer history , todo lists , etc and start over every few months ! So I had them sign that they were staying with Outlook against advice and fully expected to lose all of their emails as a result .
Next time they lost their email and wanted to complain , I sent a copy of the document to them .
They stopped yelling then .
I recovered much of the email but lost the metadata like read or replied to ( by importing the mail into thunderbird and pushing it to an IMAP server ) .
They still wanted to stay with Outlook.I 'm convinced that the best move Apple could make to expand the popularity of the iPhone even more is have it randomly deliver painful shocks and scramble the contacts list .
People seem to like it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the real issue.
I have consulted for small businesses.
When (inevitably), Outlook burped and misplaced 100\% of their email AGAIN (it happens to them every month or two), I suggested they try Thunderbird.
Note that they didn't have Exchange server and never used any feature of Outlook except reading and sending email.
They DO use their inboxes as a history and todo list and typically keep important contact info in emails in their inbox (or occasiobnally another folder).Their conclusion: Thunderbird is 'too hard' to use 'because the buttons look different'.
So, in order to not have to get used to different icons, they'd rather lose all of their contact information customer history, todo lists, etc and start over every few months!So I had them sign that they were staying with Outlook against advice and fully expected to lose all of their emails as a result.
Next time they lost their email and wanted to complain, I sent a copy of the document to them.
They stopped yelling then.
I recovered much of the email but lost the metadata like read or replied to (by importing the mail into thunderbird and pushing it to an IMAP server).
They still wanted to stay with Outlook.I'm convinced that the best move Apple could make to expand the popularity of the iPhone even more is have it randomly deliver painful shocks and scramble the contacts list.
People seem to like it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667267</id>
	<title>Works in reverse</title>
	<author>hcs\_$reboot</author>
	<datestamp>1247413560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the major factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees' unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiar</p></div><p>Reversely, it happens to be <em>one of</em> the reasons people do not want to give up the Google  search engine in favor of Bing: "a tool that is so familiar".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the major factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees ' unwillingness to give up a tool that 's so familiarReversely , it happens to be one of the reasons people do not want to give up the Google search engine in favor of Bing : " a tool that is so familiar " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the major factor preventing businesses from transferring their communication interface from Outlook to Google Apps is employees' unwillingness to give up a tool that's so familiarReversely, it happens to be one of the reasons people do not want to give up the Google  search engine in favor of Bing: "a tool that is so familiar".
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667253</id>
	<title>Re:Market it to Notes users</title>
	<author>hibiki\_r</author>
	<datestamp>1247413440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Notes is heaven compared to the 'powers' of Groupwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Notes is heaven compared to the 'powers ' of Groupwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notes is heaven compared to the 'powers' of Groupwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667443</id>
	<title>They may be hooked on it but ... still idiots</title>
	<author>cellocgw</author>
	<datestamp>1247415540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure my company is no different from many others:  despite having had Exchange/Outlook server running for close to 10 years, most people are &amp;^\%$* clueless as to its use.  We even mandated that all conference rooms be reserved thru Outlook Calendar, but (especially upper management) people just plain don't do so.  And I've tried to suggest that people learn to put their personal schedule (vacation, trips, etc) and their personal calendar, AND that managers learn to *look* at their staffs'  calendars<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,but not a chance.<br>So we plod along with a tool that nobody is willing to learn how to use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure my company is no different from many others : despite having had Exchange/Outlook server running for close to 10 years , most people are &amp; ^ \ % $ * clueless as to its use .
We even mandated that all conference rooms be reserved thru Outlook Calendar , but ( especially upper management ) people just plain do n't do so .
And I 've tried to suggest that people learn to put their personal schedule ( vacation , trips , etc ) and their personal calendar , AND that managers learn to * look * at their staffs ' calendars ,but not a chance.So we plod along with a tool that nobody is willing to learn how to use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure my company is no different from many others:  despite having had Exchange/Outlook server running for close to 10 years, most people are &amp;^\%$* clueless as to its use.
We even mandated that all conference rooms be reserved thru Outlook Calendar, but (especially upper management) people just plain don't do so.
And I've tried to suggest that people learn to put their personal schedule (vacation, trips, etc) and their personal calendar, AND that managers learn to *look* at their staffs'  calendars ,but not a chance.So we plod along with a tool that nobody is willing to learn how to use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671333</id>
	<title>Re:Can you help me?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247406960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yarrr, I think ye be wanting one with this kernel <a href="http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3633221" title="internetnews.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3633221</a> [internetnews.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yarrr , I think ye be wanting one with this kernel http : //www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3633221 [ internetnews.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yarrr, I think ye be wanting one with this kernel http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3633221 [internetnews.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667147</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667625</id>
	<title>Re:Exchange-Outlook-SharePoint, baby!</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1247417040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office, would <i>rather give up their children than that combo</i>.</p></div><p>So the stereotypes are true??? Damn...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office , would rather give up their children than that combo.So the stereotypes are true ? ? ?
Damn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>companies that grab hold of SharePoint integration with Exchange and MS Office, would rather give up their children than that combo.So the stereotypes are true???
Damn...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277</id>
	<title>Absolutely true</title>
	<author>Rambo Tribble</author>
	<datestamp>1247413620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Time and time again I've found the only sticking point for the end user is Outlook. They often readily accept Firefox, OpenOffice, and a host of other application substitutions, but get hung up on Outlook. The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Time and time again I 've found the only sticking point for the end user is Outlook .
They often readily accept Firefox , OpenOffice , and a host of other application substitutions , but get hung up on Outlook .
The bizarre thing is that Outlook really is n't very good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Time and time again I've found the only sticking point for the end user is Outlook.
They often readily accept Firefox, OpenOffice, and a host of other application substitutions, but get hung up on Outlook.
The bizarre thing is that Outlook really isn't very good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670973</id>
	<title>Re:Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>Zak3056</author>
	<datestamp>1247403480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"...But I can't run my business-related Win apps on it". Of course, and only after I pointed out to him that he could easily do so via virtualization</p></div></blockquote><p>So the solution to problems with Windows is to virtualize Windows?  Exactly how does that solve <i>anything</i>?  You're still left with whatever bug is biting you, but now you have performance overhead from the virtualization layer, have to maintain whatever you're using as the host OS, <i>and</i> you still get to pay the Microsoft tax.</p><p>I'm really not seeing it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...But I ca n't run my business-related Win apps on it " .
Of course , and only after I pointed out to him that he could easily do so via virtualizationSo the solution to problems with Windows is to virtualize Windows ?
Exactly how does that solve anything ?
You 're still left with whatever bug is biting you , but now you have performance overhead from the virtualization layer , have to maintain whatever you 're using as the host OS , and you still get to pay the Microsoft tax.I 'm really not seeing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...But I can't run my business-related Win apps on it".
Of course, and only after I pointed out to him that he could easily do so via virtualizationSo the solution to problems with Windows is to virtualize Windows?
Exactly how does that solve anything?
You're still left with whatever bug is biting you, but now you have performance overhead from the virtualization layer, have to maintain whatever you're using as the host OS, and you still get to pay the Microsoft tax.I'm really not seeing it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667199</id>
	<title>Not willing to give up functionality??</title>
	<author>magisterx</author>
	<datestamp>1247412960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it also discovered that many companies consider it a deal-breaker to lose the functionality that the Outlook-Exchange combo provides</p></div><p>
Isn't that the same as saying that companies like the functionality and are willing to pay for it?
<br> <br>
I could certainly understand the point if it had said that they are not willing to lose the current interface or not willing to lose the training time already put in, but saying they are not willing to lose the functionality is the same as saying it is good software, they are willing to pay for it, and they are not willing to switch until someone can come up with something actually better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it also discovered that many companies consider it a deal-breaker to lose the functionality that the Outlook-Exchange combo provides Is n't that the same as saying that companies like the functionality and are willing to pay for it ?
I could certainly understand the point if it had said that they are not willing to lose the current interface or not willing to lose the training time already put in , but saying they are not willing to lose the functionality is the same as saying it is good software , they are willing to pay for it , and they are not willing to switch until someone can come up with something actually better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it also discovered that many companies consider it a deal-breaker to lose the functionality that the Outlook-Exchange combo provides
Isn't that the same as saying that companies like the functionality and are willing to pay for it?
I could certainly understand the point if it had said that they are not willing to lose the current interface or not willing to lose the training time already put in, but saying they are not willing to lose the functionality is the same as saying it is good software, they are willing to pay for it, and they are not willing to switch until someone can come up with something actually better.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668493</id>
	<title>Re:Give me an alternative...</title>
	<author>brusk</author>
	<datestamp>1247425320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Look into <a href="http://www.mailstore.com/en/" title="mailstore.com">Mailstore</a> [mailstore.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look into Mailstore [ mailstore.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look into Mailstore [mailstore.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668037</id>
	<title>This isn't news.</title>
	<author>sproketboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247420640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Google didn't realize that then I think I should sell the stocks I have in them.  This is exactly the same situation we had in the 90's and nothing's changed.</p><p>I have to use Outlook at work and the spell checker is so crap. I find it easier to just google the misspelled word and Google gives me the correct spelling</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google did n't realize that then I think I should sell the stocks I have in them .
This is exactly the same situation we had in the 90 's and nothing 's changed.I have to use Outlook at work and the spell checker is so crap .
I find it easier to just google the misspelled word and Google gives me the correct spelling</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google didn't realize that then I think I should sell the stocks I have in them.
This is exactly the same situation we had in the 90's and nothing's changed.I have to use Outlook at work and the spell checker is so crap.
I find it easier to just google the misspelled word and Google gives me the correct spelling</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668761</id>
	<title>Re:Condescending comments like this make me laugh</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247427960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows really <i>is</i> a poorly designed OS, and as such I view it as an expensive toy. To name some things from the perspective from a fairly fresh install:</p><p>It intentionally hides lots of information from the user for the sake of hand-holding. The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe"). The shell sucks. The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, &lt;, &gt;, ", *,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:, | characters allowed). Case insensitive filenames. No package manager (at all!). Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems. Spaces in system path names. Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables. A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser. Lots of GUI-only configuration. The registry. No SSH. No X. No basic commands (find, grep, ln, df, du, etc.; part of shell sucking really). Extremely shitty text editor. Regular BSODs (yes, even Vista; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic, or any other crash that required a reboot). No decent interpreters (even the barest unix installs always have an awk, and almost always have perl).</p><p>Luckily, some of this can be fixed by installing tools ported from unixland (cygwin can help for a bit until it quickly falls into a broken state). However, because of the lack of package manager this can be time consuming.</p><p>So not only is it expensive and proprietary, it's technically inferior in almost every way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows really is a poorly designed OS , and as such I view it as an expensive toy .
To name some things from the perspective from a fairly fresh install : It intentionally hides lots of information from the user for the sake of hand-holding .
The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename ( ie " .exe " ) .
The shell sucks .
The filesystem has all kinds of stupid , arbitrary limitations ( like no ? , , " , * , : , | characters allowed ) .
Case insensitive filenames .
No package manager ( at all ! ) .
Still use archaic " drives " for the filesystems .
Spaces in system path names .
Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables .
A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser .
Lots of GUI-only configuration .
The registry .
No SSH .
No X. No basic commands ( find , grep , ln , df , du , etc .
; part of shell sucking really ) .
Extremely shitty text editor .
Regular BSODs ( yes , even Vista ; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic , or any other crash that required a reboot ) .
No decent interpreters ( even the barest unix installs always have an awk , and almost always have perl ) .Luckily , some of this can be fixed by installing tools ported from unixland ( cygwin can help for a bit until it quickly falls into a broken state ) .
However , because of the lack of package manager this can be time consuming.So not only is it expensive and proprietary , it 's technically inferior in almost every way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows really is a poorly designed OS, and as such I view it as an expensive toy.
To name some things from the perspective from a fairly fresh install:It intentionally hides lots of information from the user for the sake of hand-holding.
The execution permission on the filesystem is stored in the filename (ie ".exe").
The shell sucks.
The filesystem has all kinds of stupid, arbitrary limitations (like no ?, , ", *, :, | characters allowed).
Case insensitive filenames.
No package manager (at all!).
Still use archaic "drives" for the filesystems.
Spaces in system path names.
Severe limitations on the size of environmental variables.
A seriously piss poor excuse for a browser.
Lots of GUI-only configuration.
The registry.
No SSH.
No X. No basic commands (find, grep, ln, df, du, etc.
; part of shell sucking really).
Extremely shitty text editor.
Regular BSODs (yes, even Vista; I have yet to personally see a linux kernel panic, or any other crash that required a reboot).
No decent interpreters (even the barest unix installs always have an awk, and almost always have perl).Luckily, some of this can be fixed by installing tools ported from unixland (cygwin can help for a bit until it quickly falls into a broken state).
However, because of the lack of package manager this can be time consuming.So not only is it expensive and proprietary, it's technically inferior in almost every way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195</id>
	<title>Same old story, same old song and dance...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247412960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I believe this is the argument that keeps so many people on Windows and IE, too. This article is informative in that it brings up another example I hadn't thought of before, but when it comes down to it, people just resist change.
<br>I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly. Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe this is the argument that keeps so many people on Windows and IE , too .
This article is informative in that it brings up another example I had n't thought of before , but when it comes down to it , people just resist change .
I guess the bottom line is , if you are coming out with a new product , you do n't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly .
Then it really does n't matter much what comes later , you 're in the money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe this is the argument that keeps so many people on Windows and IE, too.
This article is informative in that it brings up another example I hadn't thought of before, but when it comes down to it, people just resist change.
I guess the bottom line is, if you are coming out with a new product, you don't have to be the best--you just have to first and spread quickly.
Then it really doesn't matter much what comes later, you're in the money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28689361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672457
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667791
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28681667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667585
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28675523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28674389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667619
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28681209
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667147
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28676649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28678045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668093
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667253
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667721
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667263
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667199
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28680973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_12_1334246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667469
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667735
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671333
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28680973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28689361
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667707
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669221
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667803
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667585
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667445
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667423
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667487
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668109
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668093
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670173
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28681209
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671455
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673431
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668761
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669853
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669787
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671619
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671605
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668875
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669237
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667567
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668173
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667619
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669545
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672959
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671251
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28681667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670473
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667213
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667471
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668307
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28674389
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667791
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667331
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28673187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28672457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667267
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667937
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667817
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28676649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28675523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28670259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28669065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667253
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28678045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28671621
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_12_1334246.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28667865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_12_1334246.28668199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
