<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_13_2359208</id>
	<title>Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7 &mdash; Survey</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247487600000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"<a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/310984/survey\_says\_most\_companies\_won\_t\_deploy\_windows\_7">Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans</a> to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey. Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7. (<a href="http://scriptlogic.http.internapcdn.net/scriptlogic/downloads/whitepapers/Windows\_7\_Survey\_Final.pdf">Full results</a>, PDF.)"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year , according to a new survey .
Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey , 59.3 percent said they did n't have a plan to deploy Windows 7 .
( Full results , PDF .
) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey.
Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7.
(Full results, PDF.
)"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689421</id>
	<title>Misleading Title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not having a plan to do something doesn't mean you're not going to do it; I don't have a plan to go on holiday next year, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to, it just means I'm not yet working on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not having a plan to do something does n't mean you 're not going to do it ; I do n't have a plan to go on holiday next year , but that does n't mean I 'm not going to , it just means I 'm not yet working on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not having a plan to do something doesn't mean you're not going to do it; I don't have a plan to go on holiday next year, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to, it just means I'm not yet working on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692521</id>
	<title>It's all about money!</title>
	<author>MrJynxx</author>
	<datestamp>1247592660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm, there's an issue with the "we wont' be deploying in 2010" argument.  While most are saying they want to do a "shakedown" of the windows7 OS and get all of the bugs out, what most do not realize is the release date is at the end of most companies fiscal year.  All of the budgets for 2010 have already been allocated and there is no way any company would approve a budget for an OS that will be deployed as soon as it's released as the app guys haven't had a chance to test their apps in a full production build.</p><p>However, if you are a large corporation I can guarentee the desktop engineers already have a working build and would be ready to deploy if it was necessary, but it all comes down to money and dev time!</p><p>While XP is still a HUGE force in the corporate world it isn't free to maintain the MS support.  It will eventually come down to minor deployments here and there within a firm but full adoption will not happen until 2011 at a minimum.</p><p>The real looser here is Vista.  I know of maybe a handful of companies that actually did the Vista thing.  Everyone else will leap frog it and adopt Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm , there 's an issue with the " we wont ' be deploying in 2010 " argument .
While most are saying they want to do a " shakedown " of the windows7 OS and get all of the bugs out , what most do not realize is the release date is at the end of most companies fiscal year .
All of the budgets for 2010 have already been allocated and there is no way any company would approve a budget for an OS that will be deployed as soon as it 's released as the app guys have n't had a chance to test their apps in a full production build.However , if you are a large corporation I can guarentee the desktop engineers already have a working build and would be ready to deploy if it was necessary , but it all comes down to money and dev time ! While XP is still a HUGE force in the corporate world it is n't free to maintain the MS support .
It will eventually come down to minor deployments here and there within a firm but full adoption will not happen until 2011 at a minimum.The real looser here is Vista .
I know of maybe a handful of companies that actually did the Vista thing .
Everyone else will leap frog it and adopt Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm, there's an issue with the "we wont' be deploying in 2010" argument.
While most are saying they want to do a "shakedown" of the windows7 OS and get all of the bugs out, what most do not realize is the release date is at the end of most companies fiscal year.
All of the budgets for 2010 have already been allocated and there is no way any company would approve a budget for an OS that will be deployed as soon as it's released as the app guys haven't had a chance to test their apps in a full production build.However, if you are a large corporation I can guarentee the desktop engineers already have a working build and would be ready to deploy if it was necessary, but it all comes down to money and dev time!While XP is still a HUGE force in the corporate world it isn't free to maintain the MS support.
It will eventually come down to minor deployments here and there within a firm but full adoption will not happen until 2011 at a minimum.The real looser here is Vista.
I know of maybe a handful of companies that actually did the Vista thing.
Everyone else will leap frog it and adopt Windows 7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247578080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689591</id>
	<title>Re:Talk about a misleading title</title>
	<author>Iftekhar25</author>
	<datestamp>1247580000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mod parent up.</p><p>This survey means absolutely nothing. It was taken before Microsoft announced a release date, and that means it's no longer relevant.</p><p>Considering that, the number is quite strong.</p><p>Windows 7 has a lot of mindshare as "Microsoft [finally] gets it right."</p><p>I don't mind burning some karma here, but you gotta call it like you see it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mod parent up.This survey means absolutely nothing .
It was taken before Microsoft announced a release date , and that means it 's no longer relevant.Considering that , the number is quite strong.Windows 7 has a lot of mindshare as " Microsoft [ finally ] gets it right .
" I do n't mind burning some karma here , but you got ta call it like you see it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mod parent up.This survey means absolutely nothing.
It was taken before Microsoft announced a release date, and that means it's no longer relevant.Considering that, the number is quite strong.Windows 7 has a lot of mindshare as "Microsoft [finally] gets it right.
"I don't mind burning some karma here, but you gotta call it like you see it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692557</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>Nagyman</author>
	<datestamp>1247592840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.  Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.</p></div><p>The concept of <a href="http://unite.opera.com/" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">Opera Unite</a> [opera.com] (web server in a browser), could be a possible means of making this kind of thing a reality. I've been thinking that as more people become angered by the control of YouTube, Facebook, etc, over what you can do with the services (like posting a home made video with copyrighted music in the background), solutions like this might become popular.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account .
Indeed , I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does , except that you own your data , and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.The concept of Opera Unite [ opera.com ] ( web server in a browser ) , could be a possible means of making this kind of thing a reality .
I 've been thinking that as more people become angered by the control of YouTube , Facebook , etc , over what you can do with the services ( like posting a home made video with copyrighted music in the background ) , solutions like this might become popular .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.
Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.The concept of Opera Unite [opera.com] (web server in a browser), could be a possible means of making this kind of thing a reality.
I've been thinking that as more people become angered by the control of YouTube, Facebook, etc, over what you can do with the services (like posting a home made video with copyrighted music in the background), solutions like this might become popular.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690869</id>
	<title>The Missing Summary from TFA</title>
	<author>Keith Russell</author>
	<datestamp>1247585580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By linking directly to the PDF, the submitter bypassed a summary from ScriptLogic's web page that <strong>directly contradicts the summary provided by angry tapir and kdawson:</strong> </p><blockquote><div><p>The primary goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the weak economy on IT infrastructure projects and we found that, despite its impact on short-term plans, <em>41\% of organizations</em> plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010. This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14\%.<br> <br>
Furthermore, in ScriptLogic's primary market segment it is usual for businesses to upgrade operating systems piecemeal as they purchase new desktop hardware, so the fact that nearly half of organizations surveyed are planning major rollouts during 2009-2010 indicates a high acceptance of Windows 7 among small and medium businesses.</p></div></blockquote><p>Hat tip: <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1181" title="zdnet.com">Ed Bott</a> [zdnet.com] </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By linking directly to the PDF , the submitter bypassed a summary from ScriptLogic 's web page that directly contradicts the summary provided by angry tapir and kdawson : The primary goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the weak economy on IT infrastructure projects and we found that , despite its impact on short-term plans , 41 \ % of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010 .
This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14 \ % .
Furthermore , in ScriptLogic 's primary market segment it is usual for businesses to upgrade operating systems piecemeal as they purchase new desktop hardware , so the fact that nearly half of organizations surveyed are planning major rollouts during 2009-2010 indicates a high acceptance of Windows 7 among small and medium businesses.Hat tip : Ed Bott [ zdnet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By linking directly to the PDF, the submitter bypassed a summary from ScriptLogic's web page that directly contradicts the summary provided by angry tapir and kdawson: The primary goal of this survey was to assess the impact of the weak economy on IT infrastructure projects and we found that, despite its impact on short-term plans, 41\% of organizations plan a wholesale migration to Windows 7 by the end of 2010.
This is actually a strong adoption rate when compared to the historical adoption rate of Windows XP in its first year which was cited as 12-14\%.
Furthermore, in ScriptLogic's primary market segment it is usual for businesses to upgrade operating systems piecemeal as they purchase new desktop hardware, so the fact that nearly half of organizations surveyed are planning major rollouts during 2009-2010 indicates a high acceptance of Windows 7 among small and medium businesses.Hat tip: Ed Bott [zdnet.com] 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700179</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Habe a look at Google Wave. It's open source and you will be able to deploy it on your own computer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Habe a look at Google Wave .
It 's open source and you will be able to deploy it on your own computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Habe a look at Google Wave.
It's open source and you will be able to deploy it on your own computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692435</id>
	<title>Re:no surprise</title>
	<author>BlairAtRice</author>
	<datestamp>1247592240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The interesting figure here isn't the 6/10. It's the 4/10. I'd have to question the sanity of that 40\%.



This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy, and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments. No new OS, from anyone, is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release.</p>
 </div><p>Most of those 4/10 already have their hands on the OS and are testing it.

Many large corporations are given prerelease versions for application testing prior to the street release date.

If any of them were going live on day 1 with no testing that would be insane, but i bet most will have been testing extensively prior to october.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting figure here is n't the 6/10 .
It 's the 4/10 .
I 'd have to question the sanity of that 40 \ % .
This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy , and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments .
No new OS , from anyone , is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release .
Most of those 4/10 already have their hands on the OS and are testing it .
Many large corporations are given prerelease versions for application testing prior to the street release date .
If any of them were going live on day 1 with no testing that would be insane , but i bet most will have been testing extensively prior to october .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting figure here isn't the 6/10.
It's the 4/10.
I'd have to question the sanity of that 40\%.
This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy, and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments.
No new OS, from anyone, is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release.
Most of those 4/10 already have their hands on the OS and are testing it.
Many large corporations are given prerelease versions for application testing prior to the street release date.
If any of them were going live on day 1 with no testing that would be insane, but i bet most will have been testing extensively prior to october.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690437</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Endo13</author>
	<datestamp>1247583540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. This article and summary should both be tagged troll. The only actual news here is that 34\% of the companies surveyed already have plans to have it deployed <em>by the end of next year</em> and it's not even released yet!</p><p>Now I'm no huge fan of Microsoft, but I'd guess this is about their best pre-release effort ever. They have definitely done some things right this time around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
This article and summary should both be tagged troll .
The only actual news here is that 34 \ % of the companies surveyed already have plans to have it deployed by the end of next year and it 's not even released yet ! Now I 'm no huge fan of Microsoft , but I 'd guess this is about their best pre-release effort ever .
They have definitely done some things right this time around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
This article and summary should both be tagged troll.
The only actual news here is that 34\% of the companies surveyed already have plans to have it deployed by the end of next year and it's not even released yet!Now I'm no huge fan of Microsoft, but I'd guess this is about their best pre-release effort ever.
They have definitely done some things right this time around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28694489</id>
	<title>Where's the carrot?</title>
	<author>hazydave</author>
	<datestamp>1247600940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I get that some people/companies/banana republics upgrade Windows simply because Microsoft has dropped support for the version they're using. I have no warm and fuzzy feelings for the level of support in these things from Microsoft (well, they do fix exploits that Linux fixed or didn't have a decade or two ago, they fix the open holes in things like DRM.. but bug fixes? New features? Hello, Steve, you there?).</p><p>But are we, as humans, now finally caught up enough with technology that many we simply don't just take MS's word for it that we need an upgrade? I mean, it used to be a lemmings things.. all sorts of people jumping on the new version. That probably meant the vast majority of us either found the current version so horrible there was no chance of upgrade regret, or we were just entranced by shiny new things sparkled in front of us.</p><p>Vista pretty much changed that, breaking that first rule, "well, can't possibly be any worse". So, few upgrades to Vista, many downgrades back to XP.. at least the devil we know has a leash.</p><p>But hey, I have a curious idea here: why not release a version of Windows that actually offers a reason for an upgrade? I mean, what's so wrong about that? Not just shiny objects on the desktop, not just "it's different" for difference sake alone... something of actual, defineable value. Also not "well, we're not going to release these new device drivers/programs/porn sites for XP, so you had BETTER upgrade.</p><p>'Cause really, I have occasionally upgraded  a Windows machine at gunpoint. That's not a way to endear Microsoft love.. that's a way to win enemies. Maybe I'm weird, but to me, the computer is a tool more than a toy.. the toys run on top of that OS and hardware. Make that work better, on my schedule, and I'm your buddy.. gunpoint me, and I'm happy to offer my vast technical expertise telling others why they don't need to bother with that upgrade you forced me into. Hell, the Ubuntu people are nicer about upgrades, despite the fact they do releases more or less on a schedule and give the thing away... they could dangle all kinds of bright shiny objects in front of my eyes and I probably wouldn't get annoyed (well, not too much), given the cost factor. Never any guns at the head.</p><p>So it's an epic-non-event that "Regular Folks", meaning business drones, techies, home users, etc. are not flocking to these upgrades... they're a little tired of the strong-arm tactics, still waiting for a legit "why should I spend that $100 on Windows when I can get whiskey, jalapaneo poppers, and a cheap date for less" answer? Deliver something of value... if I see a great new hammer at Lowes that's promising wonderful things over my current favorite hammer, and I believe the hype, I might just buy that new hammer. If the store display is telling me how old and sorry that hammer (from the same company) is now, and Lowes starts selling me a few nails that won't work with my old hammer, I will NOT buy that new one... and in fact, I'll visit Home Depot, Sears, or the local HW guy instead next time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I get that some people/companies/banana republics upgrade Windows simply because Microsoft has dropped support for the version they 're using .
I have no warm and fuzzy feelings for the level of support in these things from Microsoft ( well , they do fix exploits that Linux fixed or did n't have a decade or two ago , they fix the open holes in things like DRM.. but bug fixes ?
New features ?
Hello , Steve , you there ?
) .But are we , as humans , now finally caught up enough with technology that many we simply do n't just take MS 's word for it that we need an upgrade ?
I mean , it used to be a lemmings things.. all sorts of people jumping on the new version .
That probably meant the vast majority of us either found the current version so horrible there was no chance of upgrade regret , or we were just entranced by shiny new things sparkled in front of us.Vista pretty much changed that , breaking that first rule , " well , ca n't possibly be any worse " .
So , few upgrades to Vista , many downgrades back to XP.. at least the devil we know has a leash.But hey , I have a curious idea here : why not release a version of Windows that actually offers a reason for an upgrade ?
I mean , what 's so wrong about that ?
Not just shiny objects on the desktop , not just " it 's different " for difference sake alone... something of actual , defineable value .
Also not " well , we 're not going to release these new device drivers/programs/porn sites for XP , so you had BETTER upgrade .
'Cause really , I have occasionally upgraded a Windows machine at gunpoint .
That 's not a way to endear Microsoft love.. that 's a way to win enemies .
Maybe I 'm weird , but to me , the computer is a tool more than a toy.. the toys run on top of that OS and hardware .
Make that work better , on my schedule , and I 'm your buddy.. gunpoint me , and I 'm happy to offer my vast technical expertise telling others why they do n't need to bother with that upgrade you forced me into .
Hell , the Ubuntu people are nicer about upgrades , despite the fact they do releases more or less on a schedule and give the thing away... they could dangle all kinds of bright shiny objects in front of my eyes and I probably would n't get annoyed ( well , not too much ) , given the cost factor .
Never any guns at the head.So it 's an epic-non-event that " Regular Folks " , meaning business drones , techies , home users , etc .
are not flocking to these upgrades... they 're a little tired of the strong-arm tactics , still waiting for a legit " why should I spend that $ 100 on Windows when I can get whiskey , jalapaneo poppers , and a cheap date for less " answer ?
Deliver something of value... if I see a great new hammer at Lowes that 's promising wonderful things over my current favorite hammer , and I believe the hype , I might just buy that new hammer .
If the store display is telling me how old and sorry that hammer ( from the same company ) is now , and Lowes starts selling me a few nails that wo n't work with my old hammer , I will NOT buy that new one... and in fact , I 'll visit Home Depot , Sears , or the local HW guy instead next time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I get that some people/companies/banana republics upgrade Windows simply because Microsoft has dropped support for the version they're using.
I have no warm and fuzzy feelings for the level of support in these things from Microsoft (well, they do fix exploits that Linux fixed or didn't have a decade or two ago, they fix the open holes in things like DRM.. but bug fixes?
New features?
Hello, Steve, you there?
).But are we, as humans, now finally caught up enough with technology that many we simply don't just take MS's word for it that we need an upgrade?
I mean, it used to be a lemmings things.. all sorts of people jumping on the new version.
That probably meant the vast majority of us either found the current version so horrible there was no chance of upgrade regret, or we were just entranced by shiny new things sparkled in front of us.Vista pretty much changed that, breaking that first rule, "well, can't possibly be any worse".
So, few upgrades to Vista, many downgrades back to XP.. at least the devil we know has a leash.But hey, I have a curious idea here: why not release a version of Windows that actually offers a reason for an upgrade?
I mean, what's so wrong about that?
Not just shiny objects on the desktop, not just "it's different" for difference sake alone... something of actual, defineable value.
Also not "well, we're not going to release these new device drivers/programs/porn sites for XP, so you had BETTER upgrade.
'Cause really, I have occasionally upgraded  a Windows machine at gunpoint.
That's not a way to endear Microsoft love.. that's a way to win enemies.
Maybe I'm weird, but to me, the computer is a tool more than a toy.. the toys run on top of that OS and hardware.
Make that work better, on my schedule, and I'm your buddy.. gunpoint me, and I'm happy to offer my vast technical expertise telling others why they don't need to bother with that upgrade you forced me into.
Hell, the Ubuntu people are nicer about upgrades, despite the fact they do releases more or less on a schedule and give the thing away... they could dangle all kinds of bright shiny objects in front of my eyes and I probably wouldn't get annoyed (well, not too much), given the cost factor.
Never any guns at the head.So it's an epic-non-event that "Regular Folks", meaning business drones, techies, home users, etc.
are not flocking to these upgrades... they're a little tired of the strong-arm tactics, still waiting for a legit "why should I spend that $100 on Windows when I can get whiskey, jalapaneo poppers, and a cheap date for less" answer?
Deliver something of value... if I see a great new hammer at Lowes that's promising wonderful things over my current favorite hammer, and I believe the hype, I might just buy that new hammer.
If the store display is telling me how old and sorry that hammer (from the same company) is now, and Lowes starts selling me a few nails that won't work with my old hammer, I will NOT buy that new one... and in fact, I'll visit Home Depot, Sears, or the local HW guy instead next time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691493</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1247588400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Opera Unite: <a href="http://unite.opera.com/" title="opera.com">http://unite.opera.com/</a> [opera.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera Unite : http : //unite.opera.com/ [ opera.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera Unite: http://unite.opera.com/ [opera.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689409</id>
	<title>Of course not....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're still working on deploying Vista ; )</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're still working on deploying Vista ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're still working on deploying Vista ; )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691357</id>
	<title>Re:no surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In 3-5 years, after much internal testing, sure it would make sense. But right now -- corporate suicide</i></p><p>3 to 5 years for testing? Some of that 40\% are small or medium sized companies that don't have 3-5 years to spend rigorously testing Windows 7. At the company I work at (about 150 employees) we plan on upgrading to 7 sometime late next year. I already run Windows 7 RC on my computer at work and once RTM is released I will run that for 6 months to make sure there are no problems.  Once everything looks good then we will install it for a few specific employees for more testing and then eventually roll out to everyone.  Of course we aren't a bank or other entity that runs some mission critical systems that require 99.9~ \% uptime, but how much of that 40\% really is either?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 3-5 years , after much internal testing , sure it would make sense .
But right now -- corporate suicide3 to 5 years for testing ?
Some of that 40 \ % are small or medium sized companies that do n't have 3-5 years to spend rigorously testing Windows 7 .
At the company I work at ( about 150 employees ) we plan on upgrading to 7 sometime late next year .
I already run Windows 7 RC on my computer at work and once RTM is released I will run that for 6 months to make sure there are no problems .
Once everything looks good then we will install it for a few specific employees for more testing and then eventually roll out to everyone .
Of course we are n't a bank or other entity that runs some mission critical systems that require 99.9 ~ \ % uptime , but how much of that 40 \ % really is either ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 3-5 years, after much internal testing, sure it would make sense.
But right now -- corporate suicide3 to 5 years for testing?
Some of that 40\% are small or medium sized companies that don't have 3-5 years to spend rigorously testing Windows 7.
At the company I work at (about 150 employees) we plan on upgrading to 7 sometime late next year.
I already run Windows 7 RC on my computer at work and once RTM is released I will run that for 6 months to make sure there are no problems.
Once everything looks good then we will install it for a few specific employees for more testing and then eventually roll out to everyone.
Of course we aren't a bank or other entity that runs some mission critical systems that require 99.9~ \% uptime, but how much of that 40\% really is either?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689385</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1247579100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end</p><p>What does it promise that businesses need and don't have?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If 7 Manages everything it promises , im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the endWhat does it promise that businesses need and do n't have ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the endWhat does it promise that businesses need and don't have?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691009</id>
	<title>Re:I'll deploy Win7</title>
	<author>DJRumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1247586120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agreed. No company in their right mind would deploy a new product like this until SP1 came out anyway. I'm guessing small business might, and those who can quickly revert to old images if needed are likely candidates. The rest will hold out to see how it goes for the braver batch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
No company in their right mind would deploy a new product like this until SP1 came out anyway .
I 'm guessing small business might , and those who can quickly revert to old images if needed are likely candidates .
The rest will hold out to see how it goes for the braver batch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
No company in their right mind would deploy a new product like this until SP1 came out anyway.
I'm guessing small business might, and those who can quickly revert to old images if needed are likely candidates.
The rest will hold out to see how it goes for the braver batch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691937</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>VendettaMF</author>
	<datestamp>1247590200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Java was supposed to make ripple water effects and other animated gif replacements in cruddy web-pages. Its popularity since has been a triumph of bizarre word of mouth marketing and low-entry-bar for amateur coders over efficiency and rational design processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Java was supposed to make ripple water effects and other animated gif replacements in cruddy web-pages .
Its popularity since has been a triumph of bizarre word of mouth marketing and low-entry-bar for amateur coders over efficiency and rational design processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java was supposed to make ripple water effects and other animated gif replacements in cruddy web-pages.
Its popularity since has been a triumph of bizarre word of mouth marketing and low-entry-bar for amateur coders over efficiency and rational design processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689407</id>
	<title>Re:SP2 Syndrome</title>
	<author>Octorian</author>
	<datestamp>1247579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except "Windows 7" is really just Vista SP3<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)<br>(okay, Vista is NT 6.0, Win7 is NT 6.1)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except " Windows 7 " is really just Vista SP3 : - ) ( okay , Vista is NT 6.0 , Win7 is NT 6.1 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except "Windows 7" is really just Vista SP3 :-)(okay, Vista is NT 6.0, Win7 is NT 6.1)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689143</id>
	<title>Of course they won't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the MO of most companies when a new version of Windows comes along.  Not only because businesses don't use a new version of Windows, nor do they upgrade their existing installations.  Did anybody actually think it would be different this time?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the MO of most companies when a new version of Windows comes along .
Not only because businesses do n't use a new version of Windows , nor do they upgrade their existing installations .
Did anybody actually think it would be different this time ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the MO of most companies when a new version of Windows comes along.
Not only because businesses don't use a new version of Windows, nor do they upgrade their existing installations.
Did anybody actually think it would be different this time?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28695985</id>
	<title>Re:99.9\% of businesses.....</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In even more surprising turn of events, the full 100\% of businesses have no plans to install GNU/Hurd clients!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In even more surprising turn of events , the full 100 \ % of businesses have no plans to install GNU/Hurd clients !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In even more surprising turn of events, the full 100\% of businesses have no plans to install GNU/Hurd clients!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689737</id>
	<title>Vista users will</title>
	<author>Apoorv Khatreja</author>
	<datestamp>1247580540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We've all read the reviews, and lots of us have even tried out Windows 7. It will of course, remain Windows, inherently flawed. But the improvement over Vista is huge. Businesses that are currently running Vista would be quite prompt to shift to Windows 7, because Windows 7 is everything that Vista is not. On the other hand, businesses running XP are more likely to be complacent with their current setup, and will most likely wait to see how other companies are responding to it, and what compatibility issues crop up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've all read the reviews , and lots of us have even tried out Windows 7 .
It will of course , remain Windows , inherently flawed .
But the improvement over Vista is huge .
Businesses that are currently running Vista would be quite prompt to shift to Windows 7 , because Windows 7 is everything that Vista is not .
On the other hand , businesses running XP are more likely to be complacent with their current setup , and will most likely wait to see how other companies are responding to it , and what compatibility issues crop up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've all read the reviews, and lots of us have even tried out Windows 7.
It will of course, remain Windows, inherently flawed.
But the improvement over Vista is huge.
Businesses that are currently running Vista would be quite prompt to shift to Windows 7, because Windows 7 is everything that Vista is not.
On the other hand, businesses running XP are more likely to be complacent with their current setup, and will most likely wait to see how other companies are responding to it, and what compatibility issues crop up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692677</id>
	<title>Re:6 in 10?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247593380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all who were able to talk about Win7 without vomiting a little in their mouth. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all who were able to talk about Win7 without vomiting a little in their mouth .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all who were able to talk about Win7 without vomiting a little in their mouth.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692067</id>
	<title>Webapps...NOT!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Webapps are NOT "where its at" for me, and many others like me.  Even if the data and/or documents that you use/create in a web app are stored on your own system, there are still some very serious security concerns that must be addressed.  Such as:<br>Can someone else access your document or data while you are using a web app?<br>Is a copy of your data/document kept anywhere  besides your own computer?<br>Can someone make a webapp that will automatically send a copy of your data/document to someone you don't want to have it?<br>I am sure others here can think of more concerns!</p><p>Sorry, my data stays on my computer, which means having the apps on my computer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Webapps are NOT " where its at " for me , and many others like me .
Even if the data and/or documents that you use/create in a web app are stored on your own system , there are still some very serious security concerns that must be addressed .
Such as : Can someone else access your document or data while you are using a web app ? Is a copy of your data/document kept anywhere besides your own computer ? Can someone make a webapp that will automatically send a copy of your data/document to someone you do n't want to have it ? I am sure others here can think of more concerns ! Sorry , my data stays on my computer , which means having the apps on my computer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Webapps are NOT "where its at" for me, and many others like me.
Even if the data and/or documents that you use/create in a web app are stored on your own system, there are still some very serious security concerns that must be addressed.
Such as:Can someone else access your document or data while you are using a web app?Is a copy of your data/document kept anywhere  besides your own computer?Can someone make a webapp that will automatically send a copy of your data/document to someone you don't want to have it?I am sure others here can think of more concerns!Sorry, my data stays on my computer, which means having the apps on my computer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693453</id>
	<title>Easily Understood</title>
	<author>HermMunster</author>
	<datestamp>1247596320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By 2014 hopefully Linux will have a good 15\% of the market.  This should give rise to decisions on whether that costly Windows program is too much.  Google should have their OS out with a lot of spit and polish on it working well on desktops and laptops.  The EU and other nations most likely will have put the thumbscrews to Microsoft yet again, maybe many times.</p><p>XP will still be going strong but Microsoft likely will withhold patches to their most popular product in an attempt to extort you to purchase and upgrade to their latest.</p><p>Apple may even have decided that it is possible to bring software development and lots of new minds to their OS by releasing a version that installs nicely on any PC (say for an extra fee or an add-in card (or USB dongle) to offset the loss on profit from their own computer sales).</p><p>But the most obvious reason is that it isn't necessary to upgrade to Windows Vista or 7 in order to get your job done.  You can continue to work and make it work right with the tools you have.  Besides, I think by now, after looking at the Release Candidate of Win 7 that the performance just isn't there with all the security code added back in (they took it out in the beta to make you impressed, but we all know they ultimately had to put it back in)--very manipulative Microsoft was/is.  Essentially, Win7 is just Vista7.</p><p>It adds little overall and is not even close to the price consumers want.  The restrictive internal DRM is there and unnecessary.  It's still Microsoft's attempt to control the content market.  Gates said a couple years back that computers are no longer primarily used to create content by the vast majority of us, they are used to consume it.  That's why DRM is their key locking technology of the future.  We need to shun any technology with DRM internals and shun all content that is produced to take advantage of it.</p><p>These companies won't migrate because 1) there are alternatives now, and 2) they don't need to, and 3) they are far more aware of the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" which leads into the idea of lock in technologies which deny you a choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By 2014 hopefully Linux will have a good 15 \ % of the market .
This should give rise to decisions on whether that costly Windows program is too much .
Google should have their OS out with a lot of spit and polish on it working well on desktops and laptops .
The EU and other nations most likely will have put the thumbscrews to Microsoft yet again , maybe many times.XP will still be going strong but Microsoft likely will withhold patches to their most popular product in an attempt to extort you to purchase and upgrade to their latest.Apple may even have decided that it is possible to bring software development and lots of new minds to their OS by releasing a version that installs nicely on any PC ( say for an extra fee or an add-in card ( or USB dongle ) to offset the loss on profit from their own computer sales ) .But the most obvious reason is that it is n't necessary to upgrade to Windows Vista or 7 in order to get your job done .
You can continue to work and make it work right with the tools you have .
Besides , I think by now , after looking at the Release Candidate of Win 7 that the performance just is n't there with all the security code added back in ( they took it out in the beta to make you impressed , but we all know they ultimately had to put it back in ) --very manipulative Microsoft was/is .
Essentially , Win7 is just Vista7.It adds little overall and is not even close to the price consumers want .
The restrictive internal DRM is there and unnecessary .
It 's still Microsoft 's attempt to control the content market .
Gates said a couple years back that computers are no longer primarily used to create content by the vast majority of us , they are used to consume it .
That 's why DRM is their key locking technology of the future .
We need to shun any technology with DRM internals and shun all content that is produced to take advantage of it.These companies wo n't migrate because 1 ) there are alternatives now , and 2 ) they do n't need to , and 3 ) they are far more aware of the concept of " embrace , extend , extinguish " which leads into the idea of lock in technologies which deny you a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By 2014 hopefully Linux will have a good 15\% of the market.
This should give rise to decisions on whether that costly Windows program is too much.
Google should have their OS out with a lot of spit and polish on it working well on desktops and laptops.
The EU and other nations most likely will have put the thumbscrews to Microsoft yet again, maybe many times.XP will still be going strong but Microsoft likely will withhold patches to their most popular product in an attempt to extort you to purchase and upgrade to their latest.Apple may even have decided that it is possible to bring software development and lots of new minds to their OS by releasing a version that installs nicely on any PC (say for an extra fee or an add-in card (or USB dongle) to offset the loss on profit from their own computer sales).But the most obvious reason is that it isn't necessary to upgrade to Windows Vista or 7 in order to get your job done.
You can continue to work and make it work right with the tools you have.
Besides, I think by now, after looking at the Release Candidate of Win 7 that the performance just isn't there with all the security code added back in (they took it out in the beta to make you impressed, but we all know they ultimately had to put it back in)--very manipulative Microsoft was/is.
Essentially, Win7 is just Vista7.It adds little overall and is not even close to the price consumers want.
The restrictive internal DRM is there and unnecessary.
It's still Microsoft's attempt to control the content market.
Gates said a couple years back that computers are no longer primarily used to create content by the vast majority of us, they are used to consume it.
That's why DRM is their key locking technology of the future.
We need to shun any technology with DRM internals and shun all content that is produced to take advantage of it.These companies won't migrate because 1) there are alternatives now, and 2) they don't need to, and 3) they are far more aware of the concept of "embrace, extend, extinguish" which leads into the idea of lock in technologies which deny you a choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689747</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why one of the options in Windows 7 is a (free) VM instance of Windows XP so that you can run IE6 or other incompatible applications while still running Windows 7.</p><p>This might be more complexity than some people want but it is an option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why one of the options in Windows 7 is a ( free ) VM instance of Windows XP so that you can run IE6 or other incompatible applications while still running Windows 7.This might be more complexity than some people want but it is an option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why one of the options in Windows 7 is a (free) VM instance of Windows XP so that you can run IE6 or other incompatible applications while still running Windows 7.This might be more complexity than some people want but it is an option.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690237</id>
	<title>Company CIO's are sheep.</title>
	<author>jocknerd</author>
	<datestamp>1247582700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They'll migrate if their buddies migrate. If the momentum swings towards migration, Win 7 will happen fast. Look how fast Sharepoint is taking over corporate America.  CIO's are drinking the kool-aid.  They are being wined and dined by Microsoft's best salespeople.  If these salespeople start pushing Win 7 on corporate America, the migration will occur pretty fast.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll migrate if their buddies migrate .
If the momentum swings towards migration , Win 7 will happen fast .
Look how fast Sharepoint is taking over corporate America .
CIO 's are drinking the kool-aid .
They are being wined and dined by Microsoft 's best salespeople .
If these salespeople start pushing Win 7 on corporate America , the migration will occur pretty fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll migrate if their buddies migrate.
If the momentum swings towards migration, Win 7 will happen fast.
Look how fast Sharepoint is taking over corporate America.
CIO's are drinking the kool-aid.
They are being wined and dined by Microsoft's best salespeople.
If these salespeople start pushing Win 7 on corporate America, the migration will occur pretty fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690145</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.</p></div><p>No, I think they realize this too.</p><p>You should check out the new "TS RemtoeApp" features of the new Terminal Services in Windows Server 2008.  It lets one make any TS functional application into a web app.</p><p>I don't know how well it works, as I don't have server 2008, so it might be yet another failed implementation...  But just by the fact the feature is listed, I would say they are aware of the problem, and at least paying lip service to it.</p><p><a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753844(WS.10).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753844(WS.10).aspx</a> [microsoft.com]<br><a href="http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc730673(WS.10).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc730673(WS.10).aspx</a> [microsoft.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long run , they 'll switch .
Until everything becomes a webapp , the ecosystem almost demands it .
Here 's hoping people realize webapps are where it 's at , for most things.No , I think they realize this too.You should check out the new " TS RemtoeApp " features of the new Terminal Services in Windows Server 2008 .
It lets one make any TS functional application into a web app.I do n't know how well it works , as I do n't have server 2008 , so it might be yet another failed implementation... But just by the fact the feature is listed , I would say they are aware of the problem , and at least paying lip service to it.http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753844 ( WS.10 ) .aspx [ microsoft.com ] http : //technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc730673 ( WS.10 ) .aspx [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long run, they'll switch.
Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it.
Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.No, I think they realize this too.You should check out the new "TS RemtoeApp" features of the new Terminal Services in Windows Server 2008.
It lets one make any TS functional application into a web app.I don't know how well it works, as I don't have server 2008, so it might be yet another failed implementation...  But just by the fact the feature is listed, I would say they are aware of the problem, and at least paying lip service to it.http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc753844(WS.10).aspx [microsoft.com]http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc730673(WS.10).aspx [microsoft.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</id>
	<title>I'll deploy Win7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When XP support ends in 2014. By then, Win7 will have been shaken out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When XP support ends in 2014 .
By then , Win7 will have been shaken out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When XP support ends in 2014.
By then, Win7 will have been shaken out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689757</id>
	<title>I have seen the future - its my 12 year old</title>
	<author>cinnamon colbert</author>
	<datestamp>1247580600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>who demanded the same game his friends were playing<br>this is what drives home adoption of new windows versions, and when people are comfortable at home, they will ask for it at work</p><p>the scenario<br>CEO: my son has windows7 and he can do all this [MS BS app] cool stuff..why isn't it on our website<br>IT Guy: [to ceo]yessir, right away sir<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [to undelings] begin the windows 7 rollout for C suite execs, since thier laptops will now be incompatible with the other 99.99\% of computers in teh company, we will have to upgrade everyone else</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>who demanded the same game his friends were playingthis is what drives home adoption of new windows versions , and when people are comfortable at home , they will ask for it at workthe scenarioCEO : my son has windows7 and he can do all this [ MS BS app ] cool stuff..why is n't it on our websiteIT Guy : [ to ceo ] yessir , right away sir                       [ to undelings ] begin the windows 7 rollout for C suite execs , since thier laptops will now be incompatible with the other 99.99 \ % of computers in teh company , we will have to upgrade everyone else</tokentext>
<sentencetext>who demanded the same game his friends were playingthis is what drives home adoption of new windows versions, and when people are comfortable at home, they will ask for it at workthe scenarioCEO: my son has windows7 and he can do all this [MS BS app] cool stuff..why isn't it on our websiteIT Guy: [to ceo]yessir, right away sir
                      [to undelings] begin the windows 7 rollout for C suite execs, since thier laptops will now be incompatible with the other 99.99\% of computers in teh company, we will have to upgrade everyone else</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28711611</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1247671080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For our small business, the upgrade cycle has always been a lot longer.  Most machines made since ~2002 run XP just fine (1.5GHz CPU or faster, at least 512MB of RAM).  Our newer, dual-core, 2GB RAM machines have an expected lifespan of at least 6 years and hopefully 9-12.<br>
<br>
The pace of progress is definitely slowing down.  What will kill machines now is hardware failure more so then obsolescence due to speed/performance.<br>
<br>
On the upside, not having to buy new machines every 3-4 years will mean we can finally upgrade to new monitors.  At least once the purse strings loosen back up towards the end of 2010.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For our small business , the upgrade cycle has always been a lot longer .
Most machines made since ~ 2002 run XP just fine ( 1.5GHz CPU or faster , at least 512MB of RAM ) .
Our newer , dual-core , 2GB RAM machines have an expected lifespan of at least 6 years and hopefully 9-12 .
The pace of progress is definitely slowing down .
What will kill machines now is hardware failure more so then obsolescence due to speed/performance .
On the upside , not having to buy new machines every 3-4 years will mean we can finally upgrade to new monitors .
At least once the purse strings loosen back up towards the end of 2010 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For our small business, the upgrade cycle has always been a lot longer.
Most machines made since ~2002 run XP just fine (1.5GHz CPU or faster, at least 512MB of RAM).
Our newer, dual-core, 2GB RAM machines have an expected lifespan of at least 6 years and hopefully 9-12.
The pace of progress is definitely slowing down.
What will kill machines now is hardware failure more so then obsolescence due to speed/performance.
On the upside, not having to buy new machines every 3-4 years will mean we can finally upgrade to new monitors.
At least once the purse strings loosen back up towards the end of 2010.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690497</id>
	<title>It's actually not that bad</title>
	<author>Stachybotris</author>
	<datestamp>1247583780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a  work laptop that Vista hates.  A virginal install with all patches applied and updated hardware drivers would BSoD at least twice per work day.  Lo and behold, windows 7 worked out of the box.  The only thing that I've had any problems with on it so far is the PPTP connection to our corporate VPN.  This always fails on the negotiation point, and I have to wonder if it isn't because they're trying to finally kill PPTP.<br> <br>

A handful of my customers are using Server 2008 w/ Terminal Services, and, so far, the window 7 system is the only one that has never thrown an error while launching an application or authenticating.  Every other workstation I've used has had, well, issues.  RDP 6.1 &amp;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET 3.5 SP1 fix most of those, but not all of them.<br> <br>

So I wouldn't exactly call it corporate suicide to upgrade.  It might result in a temporary decrease in productivity while you have an employee out of the loop as you rebuild their workstation, but compare that time to what they'd lose if they were like me and had their station blue-screen and were forced to reboot twice a day or more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a work laptop that Vista hates .
A virginal install with all patches applied and updated hardware drivers would BSoD at least twice per work day .
Lo and behold , windows 7 worked out of the box .
The only thing that I 've had any problems with on it so far is the PPTP connection to our corporate VPN .
This always fails on the negotiation point , and I have to wonder if it is n't because they 're trying to finally kill PPTP .
A handful of my customers are using Server 2008 w/ Terminal Services , and , so far , the window 7 system is the only one that has never thrown an error while launching an application or authenticating .
Every other workstation I 've used has had , well , issues .
RDP 6.1 &amp; .NET 3.5 SP1 fix most of those , but not all of them .
So I would n't exactly call it corporate suicide to upgrade .
It might result in a temporary decrease in productivity while you have an employee out of the loop as you rebuild their workstation , but compare that time to what they 'd lose if they were like me and had their station blue-screen and were forced to reboot twice a day or more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a  work laptop that Vista hates.
A virginal install with all patches applied and updated hardware drivers would BSoD at least twice per work day.
Lo and behold, windows 7 worked out of the box.
The only thing that I've had any problems with on it so far is the PPTP connection to our corporate VPN.
This always fails on the negotiation point, and I have to wonder if it isn't because they're trying to finally kill PPTP.
A handful of my customers are using Server 2008 w/ Terminal Services, and, so far, the window 7 system is the only one that has never thrown an error while launching an application or authenticating.
Every other workstation I've used has had, well, issues.
RDP 6.1 &amp; .NET 3.5 SP1 fix most of those, but not all of them.
So I wouldn't exactly call it corporate suicide to upgrade.
It might result in a temporary decrease in productivity while you have an employee out of the loop as you rebuild their workstation, but compare that time to what they'd lose if they were like me and had their station blue-screen and were forced to reboot twice a day or more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693237</id>
	<title>Re:Their loss</title>
	<author>klui</author>
	<datestamp>1247595540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The most significant thing is support for more than 3GB of memory. Although I've waited, it will be harder to justify buying 64-bit without proper software support. Of course, maybe it would be better to install 64-bit Linux and run a XP-based VM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The most significant thing is support for more than 3GB of memory .
Although I 've waited , it will be harder to justify buying 64-bit without proper software support .
Of course , maybe it would be better to install 64-bit Linux and run a XP-based VM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The most significant thing is support for more than 3GB of memory.
Although I've waited, it will be harder to justify buying 64-bit without proper software support.
Of course, maybe it would be better to install 64-bit Linux and run a XP-based VM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690347</id>
	<title>Driver incompatibility is a mortal sin</title>
	<author>gestalt\_n\_pepper</author>
	<datestamp>1247583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Driver incompatibility is a mortal (i.e. intentional) sin. Incompatibility of ANY sorts without an easy upgrade path is worse. I have a hard time understanding how Microsoft's management seems to miss this blindingly obvious point again and again and again and again.....<br>.<br>People don't want the next big thing. They want their current stuff to continue to work without disruptions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Driver incompatibility is a mortal ( i.e .
intentional ) sin .
Incompatibility of ANY sorts without an easy upgrade path is worse .
I have a hard time understanding how Microsoft 's management seems to miss this blindingly obvious point again and again and again and again......People do n't want the next big thing .
They want their current stuff to continue to work without disruptions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Driver incompatibility is a mortal (i.e.
intentional) sin.
Incompatibility of ANY sorts without an easy upgrade path is worse.
I have a hard time understanding how Microsoft's management seems to miss this blindingly obvious point again and again and again and again......People don't want the next big thing.
They want their current stuff to continue to work without disruptions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689353</id>
	<title>Re:SP2 Syndrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247578920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>But Win7 is SP2. Vista SP2 to be exact.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But Win7 is SP2 .
Vista SP2 to be exact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Win7 is SP2.
Vista SP2 to be exact.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690333</id>
	<title>Re:I'll deploy Win7</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1247583120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There may not be a plan to deploy it yet, but studies and tests are done.</p><p>Where I work Windows 7 seems to be a lot better goal than Vista when the time comes to do an upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There may not be a plan to deploy it yet , but studies and tests are done.Where I work Windows 7 seems to be a lot better goal than Vista when the time comes to do an upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There may not be a plan to deploy it yet, but studies and tests are done.Where I work Windows 7 seems to be a lot better goal than Vista when the time comes to do an upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691951</id>
	<title>Re:Talk about a misleading title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247590200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's like this:</p><p>I don't have plans to poop later, but I'm open to being talked into it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like this : I do n't have plans to poop later , but I 'm open to being talked into it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like this:I don't have plans to poop later, but I'm open to being talked into it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691091</id>
	<title>Re:My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Less expensive and easier to manage?  What planet are you from again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Less expensive and easier to manage ?
What planet are you from again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Less expensive and easier to manage?
What planet are you from again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689377</id>
	<title>Dear Corporations,</title>
	<author>Centurix</author>
	<datestamp>1247579040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear lovely Corporation,</p><p>Here's a new operating system for you. Awfully sorry about the whole Vista thing, won't happen again.</p><p>Love,</p><p>Bill and Steve.</p><p>Wait... just Steve now.</p><p>PS. The Windows 7 Corporate Mega Edition will come with a free chair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear lovely Corporation,Here 's a new operating system for you .
Awfully sorry about the whole Vista thing , wo n't happen again.Love,Bill and Steve.Wait... just Steve now.PS .
The Windows 7 Corporate Mega Edition will come with a free chair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear lovely Corporation,Here's a new operating system for you.
Awfully sorry about the whole Vista thing, won't happen again.Love,Bill and Steve.Wait... just Steve now.PS.
The Windows 7 Corporate Mega Edition will come with a free chair.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must be getting older.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?</p></div><p>I remember saying the same thing about XP in regards to Windows 2000...  "It's exactly the same, but with a lego-land interface, and a firewall that won't let you use the apps you want, but allows all the viruses in.  It's bloated and slow.  I want nothing to do with it if I can avoid it."</p><p>Then XP SP2 came out: "Well, it's still bloated, but with new hardware it's not bad...  At least we can make exceptions to allow our apps to access the network finally. Too bad it has double the footprint of SP1."</p><p>Funny how Vista (and a few years) changed our perspective so much...  Because it was such a resource hog, it made XP seem tiny.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be getting older.It does n't matter what they call it , it 's still not as fast , and with a small a footprint as XP ? I remember saying the same thing about XP in regards to Windows 2000... " It 's exactly the same , but with a lego-land interface , and a firewall that wo n't let you use the apps you want , but allows all the viruses in .
It 's bloated and slow .
I want nothing to do with it if I can avoid it .
" Then XP SP2 came out : " Well , it 's still bloated , but with new hardware it 's not bad... At least we can make exceptions to allow our apps to access the network finally .
Too bad it has double the footprint of SP1 .
" Funny how Vista ( and a few years ) changed our perspective so much... Because it was such a resource hog , it made XP seem tiny .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be getting older.It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?I remember saying the same thing about XP in regards to Windows 2000...  "It's exactly the same, but with a lego-land interface, and a firewall that won't let you use the apps you want, but allows all the viruses in.
It's bloated and slow.
I want nothing to do with it if I can avoid it.
"Then XP SP2 came out: "Well, it's still bloated, but with new hardware it's not bad...  At least we can make exceptions to allow our apps to access the network finally.
Too bad it has double the footprint of SP1.
"Funny how Vista (and a few years) changed our perspective so much...  Because it was such a resource hog, it made XP seem tiny.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689273</id>
	<title>Microsoft Support Lifecycle FAQ</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247578500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct, Windows XP will be on Extended Suport until 08/04/2014.</p><p><a href="http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&amp;C2=1173" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&amp;C2=1173</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>Here is a list of what is covered (Security Hotfix Patches &amp; Microsoft Knowledge Base.)</p><p><a href="http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy</a> [microsoft.com]</p><p>There's also a horrible rumor going around where people are assuming Windows XP will become "disabled" in 2010 unless you upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct , Windows XP will be on Extended Suport until 08/04/2014.http : //support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/ ? LN = en-gb&amp;C2 = 1173 [ microsoft.com ] Here is a list of what is covered ( Security Hotfix Patches &amp; Microsoft Knowledge Base .
) http : //support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy [ microsoft.com ] There 's also a horrible rumor going around where people are assuming Windows XP will become " disabled " in 2010 unless you upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct, Windows XP will be on Extended Suport until 08/04/2014.http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&amp;C2=1173 [microsoft.com]Here is a list of what is covered (Security Hotfix Patches &amp; Microsoft Knowledge Base.
)http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy [microsoft.com]There's also a horrible rumor going around where people are assuming Windows XP will become "disabled" in 2010 unless you upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689671</id>
	<title>Re:So in 3 months</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://xkcd.com/605/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //xkcd.com/605/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://xkcd.com/605/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28698221</id>
	<title>define: deploy</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1247576580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other news, 6/10 IT administrators are fucking retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , 6/10 IT administrators are fucking retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, 6/10 IT administrators are fucking retarded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690979</id>
	<title>Re:And why upgrade?</title>
	<author>dfxm</author>
	<datestamp>1247586000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Eventually, the feature that you NEED Windows 7 for will be support.

When MS actually stops supporting XP, you will need to migrate somewhere.

Also, the reason your business apps are web based has nothing to do with Windows (or any other OS).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually , the feature that you NEED Windows 7 for will be support .
When MS actually stops supporting XP , you will need to migrate somewhere .
Also , the reason your business apps are web based has nothing to do with Windows ( or any other OS ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually, the feature that you NEED Windows 7 for will be support.
When MS actually stops supporting XP, you will need to migrate somewhere.
Also, the reason your business apps are web based has nothing to do with Windows (or any other OS).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689541</id>
	<title>Of course.</title>
	<author>Sj0</author>
	<datestamp>1247579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're in the middle of a recession. Budgets are being cut everywhere. Companies are dropping like flies.</p><p>Windows 7 is a great OS, but it's expensive to migrate your systems to a new OS, and if Windows XP is doing the trick right now, it's irresponsible to frivolously spend the time, money, and hardship switching just to be at the front of the pack. Every dollar you spend is another dollar you don't have in the bank just in case sales aren't where they should be.</p><p>To be honest, I think we're going to see the opposite of what we saw with early versions of DOS and Windows: Originally, people wanted the OS they used on their PCs at work. Eventually, people are going to want the OS they use on their PCs at home, and within 5 years, that OS will be Windows 7 for nearly everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're in the middle of a recession .
Budgets are being cut everywhere .
Companies are dropping like flies.Windows 7 is a great OS , but it 's expensive to migrate your systems to a new OS , and if Windows XP is doing the trick right now , it 's irresponsible to frivolously spend the time , money , and hardship switching just to be at the front of the pack .
Every dollar you spend is another dollar you do n't have in the bank just in case sales are n't where they should be.To be honest , I think we 're going to see the opposite of what we saw with early versions of DOS and Windows : Originally , people wanted the OS they used on their PCs at work .
Eventually , people are going to want the OS they use on their PCs at home , and within 5 years , that OS will be Windows 7 for nearly everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're in the middle of a recession.
Budgets are being cut everywhere.
Companies are dropping like flies.Windows 7 is a great OS, but it's expensive to migrate your systems to a new OS, and if Windows XP is doing the trick right now, it's irresponsible to frivolously spend the time, money, and hardship switching just to be at the front of the pack.
Every dollar you spend is another dollar you don't have in the bank just in case sales aren't where they should be.To be honest, I think we're going to see the opposite of what we saw with early versions of DOS and Windows: Originally, people wanted the OS they used on their PCs at work.
Eventually, people are going to want the OS they use on their PCs at home, and within 5 years, that OS will be Windows 7 for nearly everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693835</id>
	<title>Re:How is this new? How does this article not fail</title>
	<author>Life2Death</author>
	<datestamp>1247597940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My dad tells a story about how he was one of the first to push NT in the corporate world. Apperently that made the team excited and he got a direct phone number to get support so there would be no flukes to tarnish its image. The story also goes that it worked better than the junk that they had been using, and since it worked well others in the company overlooked the "wonkey new operating system." Though as all things go, management changed and ditched everything because it wasn't the same as everything.</p><p>I think its more of management than IT. Even where I work now it still follows this pattern - management changes and they have to step in and change everything so it looks like they are all big and important.</p><p>For the record, NT at the time was far, far superior than what they had been using. I dont think I can say that about windows 7.<br>XP runs everything it does (.net, windows installer, office, etc.) and most companies already have plenty of licenses for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My dad tells a story about how he was one of the first to push NT in the corporate world .
Apperently that made the team excited and he got a direct phone number to get support so there would be no flukes to tarnish its image .
The story also goes that it worked better than the junk that they had been using , and since it worked well others in the company overlooked the " wonkey new operating system .
" Though as all things go , management changed and ditched everything because it was n't the same as everything.I think its more of management than IT .
Even where I work now it still follows this pattern - management changes and they have to step in and change everything so it looks like they are all big and important.For the record , NT at the time was far , far superior than what they had been using .
I dont think I can say that about windows 7.XP runs everything it does ( .net , windows installer , office , etc .
) and most companies already have plenty of licenses for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My dad tells a story about how he was one of the first to push NT in the corporate world.
Apperently that made the team excited and he got a direct phone number to get support so there would be no flukes to tarnish its image.
The story also goes that it worked better than the junk that they had been using, and since it worked well others in the company overlooked the "wonkey new operating system.
" Though as all things go, management changed and ditched everything because it wasn't the same as everything.I think its more of management than IT.
Even where I work now it still follows this pattern - management changes and they have to step in and change everything so it looks like they are all big and important.For the record, NT at the time was far, far superior than what they had been using.
I dont think I can say that about windows 7.XP runs everything it does (.net, windows installer, office, etc.
) and most companies already have plenty of licenses for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692747</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Sandbags</author>
	<datestamp>1247593680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point 1) XP works fine, and that's our stance too, but that's only part of it.  Moving to Vista/7 would require rebuilding tons of images and profiles for distribution, upgrading other apps, configuring new packages for deployment, altering support policies, massive changes to group policy, new version of Antivirus to support the new OS, getting new versions of all our scanning and remediation tools, dealing with multiple differing audit policies during the 1-2 year transition, new alert scripts, modifying code to run in a browser other than IE 6, deal with higher aggregate network traffic, and more.  The OS replacement is a FRACTION of the cost of moving to the new OS, and it would be a MASSIVE manhour effort.  Just the rolout alone to nearly 15,000 desktops (as nearly all need either a new system or at least a hardware upgrade to run either Vista or 7) would equate to more than 40,000 man hours ($500,000 - $750,000 simply in LABOR!)</p><p>2) Retraining?  If you use XP today everyday at work, and can't find the start menu, taskbar, a few desktop icons in Wondows 7, and can't adjust from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and IE 6 to IE 8, then YOU'RE FIRED!  If your an IT admin or Desktop support specialast, and don't already have betas of Vista and 7 running at home, here's your warning...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Point 1 ) XP works fine , and that 's our stance too , but that 's only part of it .
Moving to Vista/7 would require rebuilding tons of images and profiles for distribution , upgrading other apps , configuring new packages for deployment , altering support policies , massive changes to group policy , new version of Antivirus to support the new OS , getting new versions of all our scanning and remediation tools , dealing with multiple differing audit policies during the 1-2 year transition , new alert scripts , modifying code to run in a browser other than IE 6 , deal with higher aggregate network traffic , and more .
The OS replacement is a FRACTION of the cost of moving to the new OS , and it would be a MASSIVE manhour effort .
Just the rolout alone to nearly 15,000 desktops ( as nearly all need either a new system or at least a hardware upgrade to run either Vista or 7 ) would equate to more than 40,000 man hours ( $ 500,000 - $ 750,000 simply in LABOR !
) 2 ) Retraining ?
If you use XP today everyday at work , and ca n't find the start menu , taskbar , a few desktop icons in Wondows 7 , and ca n't adjust from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and IE 6 to IE 8 , then YOU 'RE FIRED !
If your an IT admin or Desktop support specialast , and do n't already have betas of Vista and 7 running at home , here 's your warning.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point 1) XP works fine, and that's our stance too, but that's only part of it.
Moving to Vista/7 would require rebuilding tons of images and profiles for distribution, upgrading other apps, configuring new packages for deployment, altering support policies, massive changes to group policy, new version of Antivirus to support the new OS, getting new versions of all our scanning and remediation tools, dealing with multiple differing audit policies during the 1-2 year transition, new alert scripts, modifying code to run in a browser other than IE 6, deal with higher aggregate network traffic, and more.
The OS replacement is a FRACTION of the cost of moving to the new OS, and it would be a MASSIVE manhour effort.
Just the rolout alone to nearly 15,000 desktops (as nearly all need either a new system or at least a hardware upgrade to run either Vista or 7) would equate to more than 40,000 man hours ($500,000 - $750,000 simply in LABOR!
)2) Retraining?
If you use XP today everyday at work, and can't find the start menu, taskbar, a few desktop icons in Wondows 7, and can't adjust from Office 2003 to Office 2007 and IE 6 to IE 8, then YOU'RE FIRED!
If your an IT admin or Desktop support specialast, and don't already have betas of Vista and 7 running at home, here's your warning...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689781</id>
	<title>Of course, for every "it is doomed", there's...</title>
	<author>Real1tyCzech</author>
	<datestamp>1247580720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/168270/windows\_7\_forecast\_to\_squash\_vista\_quickly.html" title="pcworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/168270/windows\_7\_forecast\_to\_squash\_vista\_quickly.html</a> [pcworld.com]</p><p>The other side of the coin.</p><p>I love predictions.  Anyone can make them and anyone can back it up with as much BS as they want.  The truth is probably somewhere in between...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/168270/windows \ _7 \ _forecast \ _to \ _squash \ _vista \ _quickly.html [ pcworld.com ] The other side of the coin.I love predictions .
Anyone can make them and anyone can back it up with as much BS as they want .
The truth is probably somewhere in between.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/168270/windows\_7\_forecast\_to\_squash\_vista\_quickly.html [pcworld.com]The other side of the coin.I love predictions.
Anyone can make them and anyone can back it up with as much BS as they want.
The truth is probably somewhere in between...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690183</id>
	<title>Awesome statistical trolling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Out of 100 people I asked, 56 said they prefer Coke to Pepsi" == "The majority of the world refuses to drink Pepsi."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Out of 100 people I asked , 56 said they prefer Coke to Pepsi " = = " The majority of the world refuses to drink Pepsi .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Out of 100 people I asked, 56 said they prefer Coke to Pepsi" == "The majority of the world refuses to drink Pepsi.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691077</id>
	<title>Me too, and I tried...</title>
	<author>S-100</author>
	<datestamp>1247586360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't blame them for passing.  I installed the Windows 7 Beta when it was first released, and it worked very well.  My main mistake was installing the 64 bit version, which had inadequate driver support for some exotic hardware that I have.  Microsoft killed off the Beta for the Release Candidate at the beginning of the month, so beta users were forced to re-install the new Windows RC.  I expected some of the minor UI issues to be resolved, but instead there are some major new problems.  Key issues now are no printers being shown in the control panel, non-working camera image capture (throws an error that a SCANNER is required), Folder settings that don't work, and issues with applications that just don't support Vista or beyond (a Roland ColorCamm printer and the Eclipse IDE for me).<br> <br>So today I officially give up on WIndows 7 and I'm reverting back to XP for the foreseeable future.  The shiny wrapper is just not worth the rancid crud underneath.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't blame them for passing .
I installed the Windows 7 Beta when it was first released , and it worked very well .
My main mistake was installing the 64 bit version , which had inadequate driver support for some exotic hardware that I have .
Microsoft killed off the Beta for the Release Candidate at the beginning of the month , so beta users were forced to re-install the new Windows RC .
I expected some of the minor UI issues to be resolved , but instead there are some major new problems .
Key issues now are no printers being shown in the control panel , non-working camera image capture ( throws an error that a SCANNER is required ) , Folder settings that do n't work , and issues with applications that just do n't support Vista or beyond ( a Roland ColorCamm printer and the Eclipse IDE for me ) .
So today I officially give up on WIndows 7 and I 'm reverting back to XP for the foreseeable future .
The shiny wrapper is just not worth the rancid crud underneath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't blame them for passing.
I installed the Windows 7 Beta when it was first released, and it worked very well.
My main mistake was installing the 64 bit version, which had inadequate driver support for some exotic hardware that I have.
Microsoft killed off the Beta for the Release Candidate at the beginning of the month, so beta users were forced to re-install the new Windows RC.
I expected some of the minor UI issues to be resolved, but instead there are some major new problems.
Key issues now are no printers being shown in the control panel, non-working camera image capture (throws an error that a SCANNER is required), Folder settings that don't work, and issues with applications that just don't support Vista or beyond (a Roland ColorCamm printer and the Eclipse IDE for me).
So today I officially give up on WIndows 7 and I'm reverting back to XP for the foreseeable future.
The shiny wrapper is just not worth the rancid crud underneath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689249</id>
	<title>And why should they?</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247578440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're in tight economic times.  Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature.  I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that.  Same goes for Vista.  If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.</p><p>The only reason I'm upgrading at least one of my machines is because my clients expect me to be informed about the latest versions, whether they themselves are actually using them or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're in tight economic times .
Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature .
I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that .
Same goes for Vista .
If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements , there is no reason to change things.The only reason I 'm upgrading at least one of my machines is because my clients expect me to be informed about the latest versions , whether they themselves are actually using them or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're in tight economic times.
Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature.
I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that.
Same goes for Vista.
If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.The only reason I'm upgrading at least one of my machines is because my clients expect me to be informed about the latest versions, whether they themselves are actually using them or not.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28696613</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1247567280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A company that won't spend money on worthwhile capital expenditures seems like the kind of place to get your resume ready at. Keeping old stuff around because it would cost money to upgrade is silly. Keeping old stuff around because it would cost more to upgrade than the increases in efficiency and security would enhance is reasonable. Not upgrading from IE6 is fucking retarded.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A company that wo n't spend money on worthwhile capital expenditures seems like the kind of place to get your resume ready at .
Keeping old stuff around because it would cost money to upgrade is silly .
Keeping old stuff around because it would cost more to upgrade than the increases in efficiency and security would enhance is reasonable .
Not upgrading from IE6 is fucking retarded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company that won't spend money on worthwhile capital expenditures seems like the kind of place to get your resume ready at.
Keeping old stuff around because it would cost money to upgrade is silly.
Keeping old stuff around because it would cost more to upgrade than the increases in efficiency and security would enhance is reasonable.
Not upgrading from IE6 is fucking retarded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689897</id>
	<title>Those are good numbers!</title>
	<author>johncandale</author>
	<datestamp>1247581200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>if 37\% do do it by end of next year, that's really good.     No sane IT department would spend money on large deployments before hardware makers have first released win 7 drivers, and second, those drivers have had some good test time in the wild.  Not to mention win OS's are hugely complex systems and with big verison changes only happening every 5 years, or what not, a lot of new problems get introduced all at once.</htmltext>
<tokenext>if 37 \ % do do it by end of next year , that 's really good .
No sane IT department would spend money on large deployments before hardware makers have first released win 7 drivers , and second , those drivers have had some good test time in the wild .
Not to mention win OS 's are hugely complex systems and with big verison changes only happening every 5 years , or what not , a lot of new problems get introduced all at once .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if 37\% do do it by end of next year, that's really good.
No sane IT department would spend money on large deployments before hardware makers have first released win 7 drivers, and second, those drivers have had some good test time in the wild.
Not to mention win OS's are hugely complex systems and with big verison changes only happening every 5 years, or what not, a lot of new problems get introduced all at once.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689483</id>
	<title>Why would they?</title>
	<author>gr8\_phk</author>
	<datestamp>1247579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A more interesting headline would be: Nearly 4 in 10 companies plan to upgrade to software that doesn't exist yet. Really, how can you plan to roll something out that you haven't evaluated yet? Oh wait, it makes work weather it's good/bad or needed/not. And if it sucks, you can't be blamed for using Microsoft. Now it's all clear to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A more interesting headline would be : Nearly 4 in 10 companies plan to upgrade to software that does n't exist yet .
Really , how can you plan to roll something out that you have n't evaluated yet ?
Oh wait , it makes work weather it 's good/bad or needed/not .
And if it sucks , you ca n't be blamed for using Microsoft .
Now it 's all clear to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A more interesting headline would be: Nearly 4 in 10 companies plan to upgrade to software that doesn't exist yet.
Really, how can you plan to roll something out that you haven't evaluated yet?
Oh wait, it makes work weather it's good/bad or needed/not.
And if it sucks, you can't be blamed for using Microsoft.
Now it's all clear to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691351</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>davek</author>
	<datestamp>1247587740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.</p></div><p>Give that man a cigar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does , except that you own your data , and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.Give that man a cigar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.Give that man a cigar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689825</id>
	<title>Re:It would be news if they DID</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247580900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>End of 2010.</p><p>Anybody not looking at Windows 7 as the equivalent of a Vista service pack (a big one) is swallowing an awful lot of marketing, so I hope that isn't why people are waiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>End of 2010.Anybody not looking at Windows 7 as the equivalent of a Vista service pack ( a big one ) is swallowing an awful lot of marketing , so I hope that is n't why people are waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>End of 2010.Anybody not looking at Windows 7 as the equivalent of a Vista service pack (a big one) is swallowing an awful lot of marketing, so I hope that isn't why people are waiting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690983</id>
	<title>It's the economy!</title>
	<author>King\_TJ</author>
	<datestamp>1247586000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, the economic conditions are the #1 reason our company won't be deploying Windows 7 within the next year.</p><p>Our business is heavily tied to the housing market and new business construction (shopping centers, gas stations, dept. stores, etc.)  We're still on Windows XP on our workstations and laptops (about 50 machines total).  A migration to Windows 7 would basically involve buying all new hardware too, because other than maybe 3 or 4 of the desktops we bought most recently, the rest are SLOW with XP, much less Windows 7.</p><p>Right now, we have no interest in changing anything unless the economy improves (which is doubtful it will lead to a big increase in sales for us before the next year is out).</p><p>And honestly, like another person said who posted here - there's a very real possibility to moving to Macs if we had to do a wholesale purchase of new hardware....  A few years ago, that would have been unthinkable around here.  But since then, several employees have purchased new iMacs for use at home, and all have very positive things to say about them.  We have a few applications we use which are only available for the Windows platform, but honestly, we could serve these just fine over our Terminal Server.  The Microsoft remote desktop client for OS X works pretty well.  As the systems administrator, I'd like a Mac workstation environment here, because it would practically eliminate spyware/virus hassles and save thousands per year on anti-virus software subscriptions.  From what I've seen with Windows 7 so far, it has a HUGE number of configurable options buried in it, for everything imaginable.  It embodies the typical MS idea that "more is more!", and it's going to be a huge undertaking building a comprehensive group policy to enforce across a LAN/WAN to lock down all the settings the way you want them for your corporate deployment.  OS X tends to present the OS to the user the way Apple intended it to be, and many things aren't even configurable without 3rd. party "hacks".  That's not always something a home "power user" finds as a positive, but I think it's beneficial for a business setting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , the economic conditions are the # 1 reason our company wo n't be deploying Windows 7 within the next year.Our business is heavily tied to the housing market and new business construction ( shopping centers , gas stations , dept .
stores , etc .
) We 're still on Windows XP on our workstations and laptops ( about 50 machines total ) .
A migration to Windows 7 would basically involve buying all new hardware too , because other than maybe 3 or 4 of the desktops we bought most recently , the rest are SLOW with XP , much less Windows 7.Right now , we have no interest in changing anything unless the economy improves ( which is doubtful it will lead to a big increase in sales for us before the next year is out ) .And honestly , like another person said who posted here - there 's a very real possibility to moving to Macs if we had to do a wholesale purchase of new hardware.... A few years ago , that would have been unthinkable around here .
But since then , several employees have purchased new iMacs for use at home , and all have very positive things to say about them .
We have a few applications we use which are only available for the Windows platform , but honestly , we could serve these just fine over our Terminal Server .
The Microsoft remote desktop client for OS X works pretty well .
As the systems administrator , I 'd like a Mac workstation environment here , because it would practically eliminate spyware/virus hassles and save thousands per year on anti-virus software subscriptions .
From what I 've seen with Windows 7 so far , it has a HUGE number of configurable options buried in it , for everything imaginable .
It embodies the typical MS idea that " more is more !
" , and it 's going to be a huge undertaking building a comprehensive group policy to enforce across a LAN/WAN to lock down all the settings the way you want them for your corporate deployment .
OS X tends to present the OS to the user the way Apple intended it to be , and many things are n't even configurable without 3rd .
party " hacks " .
That 's not always something a home " power user " finds as a positive , but I think it 's beneficial for a business setting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, the economic conditions are the #1 reason our company won't be deploying Windows 7 within the next year.Our business is heavily tied to the housing market and new business construction (shopping centers, gas stations, dept.
stores, etc.
)  We're still on Windows XP on our workstations and laptops (about 50 machines total).
A migration to Windows 7 would basically involve buying all new hardware too, because other than maybe 3 or 4 of the desktops we bought most recently, the rest are SLOW with XP, much less Windows 7.Right now, we have no interest in changing anything unless the economy improves (which is doubtful it will lead to a big increase in sales for us before the next year is out).And honestly, like another person said who posted here - there's a very real possibility to moving to Macs if we had to do a wholesale purchase of new hardware....  A few years ago, that would have been unthinkable around here.
But since then, several employees have purchased new iMacs for use at home, and all have very positive things to say about them.
We have a few applications we use which are only available for the Windows platform, but honestly, we could serve these just fine over our Terminal Server.
The Microsoft remote desktop client for OS X works pretty well.
As the systems administrator, I'd like a Mac workstation environment here, because it would practically eliminate spyware/virus hassles and save thousands per year on anti-virus software subscriptions.
From what I've seen with Windows 7 so far, it has a HUGE number of configurable options buried in it, for everything imaginable.
It embodies the typical MS idea that "more is more!
", and it's going to be a huge undertaking building a comprehensive group policy to enforce across a LAN/WAN to lock down all the settings the way you want them for your corporate deployment.
OS X tends to present the OS to the user the way Apple intended it to be, and many things aren't even configurable without 3rd.
party "hacks".
That's not always something a home "power user" finds as a positive, but I think it's beneficial for a business setting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690221</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The reason we haven't upgraded is because it'd break some of the applications and they don't want the headache of having to retest the application (that's the excuse anyway), so we're stuck with it.</i> </p><p>Let this be a lesson to you kids, don't code to non-standard systems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we have n't upgraded is because it 'd break some of the applications and they do n't want the headache of having to retest the application ( that 's the excuse anyway ) , so we 're stuck with it .
Let this be a lesson to you kids , do n't code to non-standard systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we haven't upgraded is because it'd break some of the applications and they don't want the headache of having to retest the application (that's the excuse anyway), so we're stuck with it.
Let this be a lesson to you kids, don't code to non-standard systems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692539</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247592720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you are talking about is called <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/16/1324225/Opera-100-Released-With-Integrated-Web-Server-Functionality" title="slashdot.org">Opera Unite</a> [slashdot.org].</p><p>Oh and: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are talking about is called Opera Unite [ slashdot.org ] .Oh and : " Those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are talking about is called Opera Unite [slashdot.org].Oh and: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>will this name work</author>
	<datestamp>1247579520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.</p></div><p>I hear this argument a lot. Let me ask you this: how much "training" did you get for XP?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade , but they 'd have to re-train everyone.I hear this argument a lot .
Let me ask you this : how much " training " did you get for XP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.I hear this argument a lot.
Let me ask you this: how much "training" did you get for XP?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689653</id>
	<title>Another news site that doesn't study history</title>
	<author>Tomsk70</author>
	<datestamp>1247580240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I recall, no sites had any plans to introduce 2000, as NT4 was 'quite adequate'.</p><p>Then it was XP, as 'no-one wants to buy new machines'.</p><p>The two hiccups - Windows ME (unsurprisingly), and Vista. And now here we are, with XP about to go (and more than showing it's age) - and somehow, managers not wanting to frighten chairmen with next years' costs has become a slashdot news article.</p><p>Which it would be, if I'd only been in the game for five years....please guys, you're supposed to be impressive, not tabloid-recyclers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I recall , no sites had any plans to introduce 2000 , as NT4 was 'quite adequate'.Then it was XP , as 'no-one wants to buy new machines'.The two hiccups - Windows ME ( unsurprisingly ) , and Vista .
And now here we are , with XP about to go ( and more than showing it 's age ) - and somehow , managers not wanting to frighten chairmen with next years ' costs has become a slashdot news article.Which it would be , if I 'd only been in the game for five years....please guys , you 're supposed to be impressive , not tabloid-recyclers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I recall, no sites had any plans to introduce 2000, as NT4 was 'quite adequate'.Then it was XP, as 'no-one wants to buy new machines'.The two hiccups - Windows ME (unsurprisingly), and Vista.
And now here we are, with XP about to go (and more than showing it's age) - and somehow, managers not wanting to frighten chairmen with next years' costs has become a slashdot news article.Which it would be, if I'd only been in the game for five years....please guys, you're supposed to be impressive, not tabloid-recyclers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689583</id>
	<title>How is this new? How does this article not fail?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product (at least major product) unless there is 1) pressure from the top, 2) The hardware vendor only sells with that software, 3) a service patch has been released, or 4) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola.<br> <br>

This is nothing new.  This happened with windows NT, XP, 2003, Vista and it will continue to happen.  Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it.  I've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista.<br> <br>

Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months, has it's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product ( at least major product ) unless there is 1 ) pressure from the top , 2 ) The hardware vendor only sells with that software , 3 ) a service patch has been released , or 4 ) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola .
This is nothing new .
This happened with windows NT , XP , 2003 , Vista and it will continue to happen .
Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it .
I 've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista .
Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months , has it 's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most companies refuse to upgrade their systems to a new product (at least major product) unless there is 1) pressure from the top, 2) The hardware vendor only sells with that software, 3) a service patch has been released, or 4) they receive such an unbelievable discount it borders on payola.
This is nothing new.
This happened with windows NT, XP, 2003, Vista and it will continue to happen.
Though most people who have tried windows 7 have stated they loved it.
I've had it installed for months now and I have not experienced a single crash and my laptop is running faster with windows 7 then it did vista.
Wait until windows 7 is out for 6 months, has it's first patch and then come out with an verifiable/reliable article saying this information.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692131</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Golddess</author>
	<datestamp>1247591100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I hear this argument a lot. Let me ask you this: how much "training" did you get for XP?</p></div><p>Unless they jumped straight from 3.11 to XP, that is hardly a fair comparison.  A better question would be how much training they received when going from 3.11 to 95.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear this argument a lot .
Let me ask you this : how much " training " did you get for XP ? Unless they jumped straight from 3.11 to XP , that is hardly a fair comparison .
A better question would be how much training they received when going from 3.11 to 95 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear this argument a lot.
Let me ask you this: how much "training" did you get for XP?Unless they jumped straight from 3.11 to XP, that is hardly a fair comparison.
A better question would be how much training they received when going from 3.11 to 95.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691147</id>
	<title>I'll deploy Win7</title>
	<author>limaxray</author>
	<datestamp>1247586840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my shit turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28696023</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they?</title>
	<author>Uberbah</author>
	<datestamp>1247564820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But at least XP had a couple of reasons to upgrade from 2000: "run as" and instant user switching.  Whereas Vista is a shit sandwich: the useful features were stripped out (WinFS), but the bloat and annoying crap (UAC) were taken to 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But at least XP had a couple of reasons to upgrade from 2000 : " run as " and instant user switching .
Whereas Vista is a shit sandwich : the useful features were stripped out ( WinFS ) , but the bloat and annoying crap ( UAC ) were taken to 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But at least XP had a couple of reasons to upgrade from 2000: "run as" and instant user switching.
Whereas Vista is a shit sandwich: the useful features were stripped out (WinFS), but the bloat and annoying crap (UAC) were taken to 11.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690755</id>
	<title>Isn't this the same story from when XP came out?</title>
	<author>shacky003</author>
	<datestamp>1247585100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If my old memory serves me, the headline is basically stating the same thing said by many IT managers when XP was coming out of beta. I would think that due to the fact that Vista has sucked on a scale not known since the bastard child that was born between 95 and XP, that is leading many to make these comments without fully vetting the OS for business environments. I by no means like MS, but I try to be fair. I would imagine that this will be a much more accurate statement to make if things stick a few months after 7 comes out..</htmltext>
<tokenext>If my old memory serves me , the headline is basically stating the same thing said by many IT managers when XP was coming out of beta .
I would think that due to the fact that Vista has sucked on a scale not known since the bastard child that was born between 95 and XP , that is leading many to make these comments without fully vetting the OS for business environments .
I by no means like MS , but I try to be fair .
I would imagine that this will be a much more accurate statement to make if things stick a few months after 7 comes out. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If my old memory serves me, the headline is basically stating the same thing said by many IT managers when XP was coming out of beta.
I would think that due to the fact that Vista has sucked on a scale not known since the bastard child that was born between 95 and XP, that is leading many to make these comments without fully vetting the OS for business environments.
I by no means like MS, but I try to be fair.
I would imagine that this will be a much more accurate statement to make if things stick a few months after 7 comes out..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700531</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>FrankieBaby1986</author>
	<datestamp>1247597520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>(Mimicking Average College Chick) But why would I want my facebook unavailable to everyone every time I close my MacBook?</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Mimicking Average College Chick ) But why would I want my facebook unavailable to everyone every time I close my MacBook ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Mimicking Average College Chick) But why would I want my facebook unavailable to everyone every time I close my MacBook?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28697677</id>
	<title>Re:My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>Taibhsear</author>
	<datestamp>1247572740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Simply because we're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems. A lot more reliable, <b>a lot less expensive</b>, a lot easier to manage.</p></div><p>I take it you have never seen the price tag on a Mac before... I've seen systems with identical hardware for half the price of a Mac. A third of the price if you build it yourself. They are certainly NOT less expensive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply because we 're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems .
A lot more reliable , a lot less expensive , a lot easier to manage.I take it you have never seen the price tag on a Mac before... I 've seen systems with identical hardware for half the price of a Mac .
A third of the price if you build it yourself .
They are certainly NOT less expensive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply because we're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems.
A lot more reliable, a lot less expensive, a lot easier to manage.I take it you have never seen the price tag on a Mac before... I've seen systems with identical hardware for half the price of a Mac.
A third of the price if you build it yourself.
They are certainly NOT less expensive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690981</id>
	<title>Question and Answer</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1247586000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Q: What is wrong with Windows 7?<br>
A: XP<br> <br>

They have a product that works perfectly. Why would they change? They have no reason to.<br>
This is no surprise...and not news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Q : What is wrong with Windows 7 ?
A : XP They have a product that works perfectly .
Why would they change ?
They have no reason to .
This is no surprise...and not news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Q: What is wrong with Windows 7?
A: XP 

They have a product that works perfectly.
Why would they change?
They have no reason to.
This is no surprise...and not news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689663</id>
	<title>Re:Talk about a misleading title</title>
	<author>jkrise</author>
	<datestamp>1247580300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*No plans* means *No Business Reason to shift away from XP* which was the same with Vista. Where I work, we have over 700 systems of which just 3 run Vista and that too for testing purposes. The majority are on XP and Win2K. For the BPO, Vista is a no-go because audio controller hardware does not work with Vista. For the hospital, Vista does not support our PACS software (from GE), so we remain with XP.</p><p>With Windows 7, we have tested and found out that neither the BPO nor the hospital can work, even under the so-called XP mode. So we have *No Plans* as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* No plans * means * No Business Reason to shift away from XP * which was the same with Vista .
Where I work , we have over 700 systems of which just 3 run Vista and that too for testing purposes .
The majority are on XP and Win2K .
For the BPO , Vista is a no-go because audio controller hardware does not work with Vista .
For the hospital , Vista does not support our PACS software ( from GE ) , so we remain with XP.With Windows 7 , we have tested and found out that neither the BPO nor the hospital can work , even under the so-called XP mode .
So we have * No Plans * as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*No plans* means *No Business Reason to shift away from XP* which was the same with Vista.
Where I work, we have over 700 systems of which just 3 run Vista and that too for testing purposes.
The majority are on XP and Win2K.
For the BPO, Vista is a no-go because audio controller hardware does not work with Vista.
For the hospital, Vista does not support our PACS software (from GE), so we remain with XP.With Windows 7, we have tested and found out that neither the BPO nor the hospital can work, even under the so-called XP mode.
So we have *No Plans* as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690141</id>
	<title>I also have no plans...</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1247582280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no plans to upgrade my current car to the bitching zero emission cars that we will have in 2015 either. I guess no one is ever going to own one according to the logic of the blurb.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no plans to upgrade my current car to the bitching zero emission cars that we will have in 2015 either .
I guess no one is ever going to own one according to the logic of the blurb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no plans to upgrade my current car to the bitching zero emission cars that we will have in 2015 either.
I guess no one is ever going to own one according to the logic of the blurb.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28694899</id>
	<title>stupid post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247602980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post is stupid.  My company has no "PLANS" to upgrade either.  But, we have several members of the IT Architecture team, myself included, who are actively testing laptops with Win 7 installed against our current corporate infrastructure. So far, Windows 7 gets high praise from everyone including VP of IT.  So even though there is no official plan, we will be moving to Windows 7.  Maybe we won't upgrade old devices, they'll just get replaced  with newer ones and be phased out or maybe we will actually roll out the software. It doesn't matter. Windows 7 is the best OS MS has released since WinXP (which wasn't all that hot when it first appeared mind you but got much better over time).  In fact Windows 7 is what vista should have been and coupled with Win 2008 servers (which we already have rolled out to every new build and have begun rebuilding for older systems where the apps are compatible) it will be a win for most companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post is stupid .
My company has no " PLANS " to upgrade either .
But , we have several members of the IT Architecture team , myself included , who are actively testing laptops with Win 7 installed against our current corporate infrastructure .
So far , Windows 7 gets high praise from everyone including VP of IT .
So even though there is no official plan , we will be moving to Windows 7 .
Maybe we wo n't upgrade old devices , they 'll just get replaced with newer ones and be phased out or maybe we will actually roll out the software .
It does n't matter .
Windows 7 is the best OS MS has released since WinXP ( which was n't all that hot when it first appeared mind you but got much better over time ) .
In fact Windows 7 is what vista should have been and coupled with Win 2008 servers ( which we already have rolled out to every new build and have begun rebuilding for older systems where the apps are compatible ) it will be a win for most companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post is stupid.
My company has no "PLANS" to upgrade either.
But, we have several members of the IT Architecture team, myself included, who are actively testing laptops with Win 7 installed against our current corporate infrastructure.
So far, Windows 7 gets high praise from everyone including VP of IT.
So even though there is no official plan, we will be moving to Windows 7.
Maybe we won't upgrade old devices, they'll just get replaced  with newer ones and be phased out or maybe we will actually roll out the software.
It doesn't matter.
Windows 7 is the best OS MS has released since WinXP (which wasn't all that hot when it first appeared mind you but got much better over time).
In fact Windows 7 is what vista should have been and coupled with Win 2008 servers (which we already have rolled out to every new build and have begun rebuilding for older systems where the apps are compatible) it will be a win for most companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690831</id>
	<title>only 60\% will not deploy Win 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Win 7 is going GA in mid Oct 2009, and 40\% of fortune 1000 companies plan on deploying it in before the end of the year! The last 2 months of the year. I would say that is extremely successful.</p><p>Of course MS will probably  only sell 400 million copies of Win7 in 2010, they might as well turn off the lights and go home, with awful numbers like that they'll be broke ant decade now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Win 7 is going GA in mid Oct 2009 , and 40 \ % of fortune 1000 companies plan on deploying it in before the end of the year !
The last 2 months of the year .
I would say that is extremely successful.Of course MS will probably only sell 400 million copies of Win7 in 2010 , they might as well turn off the lights and go home , with awful numbers like that they 'll be broke ant decade now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win 7 is going GA in mid Oct 2009, and 40\% of fortune 1000 companies plan on deploying it in before the end of the year!
The last 2 months of the year.
I would say that is extremely successful.Of course MS will probably  only sell 400 million copies of Win7 in 2010, they might as well turn off the lights and go home, with awful numbers like that they'll be broke ant decade now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691829</id>
	<title>Re:How is this new? How does this article not fail</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247589720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the news is that 40\% of companies *do* have plans to deploy Windows 7. That's huge... that should be read as a huge success for Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the news is that 40 \ % of companies * do * have plans to deploy Windows 7 .
That 's huge... that should be read as a huge success for Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the news is that 40\% of companies *do* have plans to deploy Windows 7.
That's huge... that should be read as a huge success for Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690411</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So should we wait for Windows 7 SP2, or is Windows 7 really Vista SP2?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So should we wait for Windows 7 SP2 , or is Windows 7 really Vista SP2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So should we wait for Windows 7 SP2, or is Windows 7 really Vista SP2?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101</id>
	<title>Why would they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they were happy with XP and didn't want to get the hardware required for Vista (plus the risk of a new OS) then why would they want to get Windows 7, given that it is essentially Vista at heart.  It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?</p><p>I'd have thought the future of business's IT apps/work is internet/web apps, but served up on an organisation's intranet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they were happy with XP and did n't want to get the hardware required for Vista ( plus the risk of a new OS ) then why would they want to get Windows 7 , given that it is essentially Vista at heart .
It does n't matter what they call it , it 's still not as fast , and with a small a footprint as XP ? I 'd have thought the future of business 's IT apps/work is internet/web apps , but served up on an organisation 's intranet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they were happy with XP and didn't want to get the hardware required for Vista (plus the risk of a new OS) then why would they want to get Windows 7, given that it is essentially Vista at heart.
It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?I'd have thought the future of business's IT apps/work is internet/web apps, but served up on an organisation's intranet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692447</id>
	<title>Dishonest Title</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only person who can't stand completely misleading titles on article postings? To summarize "Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans  to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year,"  as "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7"  is just plain idiotic.</p><p>Just because there is no "current" plan, doesn't mean they won't make a plan some time in the future. To make matters worse, the title was too absolute. Even if those companies wait 5 years to deploy Windows 7, it still makes the title a lie.</p><p>Finally, what about all the companies that aren't bothering to make plans to deploy Windows 7. There's got to be thousands of companies that are small enough not to bother with formal deployment planning. These companies may only consist of a dozen computers which will be switched to Windows 7 naturally as they replace older computers.</p><p>Please, can we have a little more honesty in the article titles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only person who ca n't stand completely misleading titles on article postings ?
To summarize " Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year , " as " Most Companies Wo n't Deploy Windows 7 " is just plain idiotic.Just because there is no " current " plan , does n't mean they wo n't make a plan some time in the future .
To make matters worse , the title was too absolute .
Even if those companies wait 5 years to deploy Windows 7 , it still makes the title a lie.Finally , what about all the companies that are n't bothering to make plans to deploy Windows 7 .
There 's got to be thousands of companies that are small enough not to bother with formal deployment planning .
These companies may only consist of a dozen computers which will be switched to Windows 7 naturally as they replace older computers.Please , can we have a little more honesty in the article titles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only person who can't stand completely misleading titles on article postings?
To summarize "Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans  to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year,"  as "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7"  is just plain idiotic.Just because there is no "current" plan, doesn't mean they won't make a plan some time in the future.
To make matters worse, the title was too absolute.
Even if those companies wait 5 years to deploy Windows 7, it still makes the title a lie.Finally, what about all the companies that aren't bothering to make plans to deploy Windows 7.
There's got to be thousands of companies that are small enough not to bother with formal deployment planning.
These companies may only consist of a dozen computers which will be switched to Windows 7 naturally as they replace older computers.Please, can we have a little more honesty in the article titles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690941</id>
	<title>NEWS FLASH</title>
	<author>notaprguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247585820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If 6 in 10 business have no plans to deploy Windows 7 in the next year is bad news then I want some of that!  Let's see...what would the comparable headlines be?

9.9 in 10 businesses have no plan to deploy Linux (desktop)in the next year!
9.4 in 10 businesses have no plans to deploy MacOS in the next year!

Microsoft would undoubtedly be thrilled if 4 in 10 businesses deployed Windows 7 in the next year. Any other software company in the world would be thrilled with that result.

Time to move along.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If 6 in 10 business have no plans to deploy Windows 7 in the next year is bad news then I want some of that !
Let 's see...what would the comparable headlines be ?
9.9 in 10 businesses have no plan to deploy Linux ( desktop ) in the next year !
9.4 in 10 businesses have no plans to deploy MacOS in the next year !
Microsoft would undoubtedly be thrilled if 4 in 10 businesses deployed Windows 7 in the next year .
Any other software company in the world would be thrilled with that result .
Time to move along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If 6 in 10 business have no plans to deploy Windows 7 in the next year is bad news then I want some of that!
Let's see...what would the comparable headlines be?
9.9 in 10 businesses have no plan to deploy Linux (desktop)in the next year!
9.4 in 10 businesses have no plans to deploy MacOS in the next year!
Microsoft would undoubtedly be thrilled if 4 in 10 businesses deployed Windows 7 in the next year.
Any other software company in the world would be thrilled with that result.
Time to move along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689889</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Bakkster</author>
	<datestamp>1247581140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it. I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies.</p> </div><p>Right, it just means 6/10 don't plan to deploy it <em>by the end of next year</em>.  I'm sure there will still be holdouts, but this survey has nothing to do with 2011, 2012, and so on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it .
I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies .
Right , it just means 6/10 do n't plan to deploy it by the end of next year .
I 'm sure there will still be holdouts , but this survey has nothing to do with 2011 , 2012 , and so on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it.
I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies.
Right, it just means 6/10 don't plan to deploy it by the end of next year.
I'm sure there will still be holdouts, but this survey has nothing to do with 2011, 2012, and so on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689373</id>
	<title>Re:And why should they?</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247579040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We're in tight economic times. Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature. I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that. Same goes for Vista. If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.</i></p><p>What this says is that Microsoft isn't doing a good job of marketing Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're in tight economic times .
Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature .
I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that .
Same goes for Vista .
If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements , there is no reason to change things.What this says is that Microsoft is n't doing a good job of marketing Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're in tight economic times.
Companies are not going to upgrade unless they have a real need for a new feature.
I have several clients who are still running on Windows XP and have absolutely no need to change that.
Same goes for Vista.
If their current systems are running smoothly and meeting requirements, there is no reason to change things.What this says is that Microsoft isn't doing a good job of marketing Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689303</id>
	<title>Re:Their loss</title>
	<author>HellYeahAutomaton</author>
	<datestamp>1247578680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On any given piece of hardware that can run XP or Vista/Windows 7, XP runs faster.</p><p>It's smarter to run XP, not lazier. And until MS gets their head out of their butt and gives people a better product than XP, people will not buy it on their own free will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On any given piece of hardware that can run XP or Vista/Windows 7 , XP runs faster.It 's smarter to run XP , not lazier .
And until MS gets their head out of their butt and gives people a better product than XP , people will not buy it on their own free will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On any given piece of hardware that can run XP or Vista/Windows 7, XP runs faster.It's smarter to run XP, not lazier.
And until MS gets their head out of their butt and gives people a better product than XP, people will not buy it on their own free will.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690045</id>
	<title>Leopard deployment</title>
	<author>oleop</author>
	<datestamp>1247581920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just wondering what are the numbers for the companies wich are planning to deploy MacOS, Debian/RedHat/Mandrake/Novell NetWare/Sysem V.

Isn't it enough beating the bushes? it just mean 4 out of 10 companies in economy close to 1929 paralysis ARE planning to deploy new OS.
Jeez, just wondering wether macOS delployment would ever be in 1 out of 1000 companies...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just wondering what are the numbers for the companies wich are planning to deploy MacOS , Debian/RedHat/Mandrake/Novell NetWare/Sysem V . Is n't it enough beating the bushes ?
it just mean 4 out of 10 companies in economy close to 1929 paralysis ARE planning to deploy new OS .
Jeez , just wondering wether macOS delployment would ever be in 1 out of 1000 companies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just wondering what are the numbers for the companies wich are planning to deploy MacOS, Debian/RedHat/Mandrake/Novell NetWare/Sysem V.

Isn't it enough beating the bushes?
it just mean 4 out of 10 companies in economy close to 1929 paralysis ARE planning to deploy new OS.
Jeez, just wondering wether macOS delployment would ever be in 1 out of 1000 companies...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689715</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the issue with using windows - there's so many applications to be used and many of them are never actually written to windows standards in the first place so every time microsoft tries to tighten the OS it breaks badly written programs. I Still have clients using accpac for DOS..</p><p>In this I am jealous of our Unix/Linux/Mac compatriots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the issue with using windows - there 's so many applications to be used and many of them are never actually written to windows standards in the first place so every time microsoft tries to tighten the OS it breaks badly written programs .
I Still have clients using accpac for DOS..In this I am jealous of our Unix/Linux/Mac compatriots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the issue with using windows - there's so many applications to be used and many of them are never actually written to windows standards in the first place so every time microsoft tries to tighten the OS it breaks badly written programs.
I Still have clients using accpac for DOS..In this I am jealous of our Unix/Linux/Mac compatriots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690261</id>
	<title>Poor word choice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>When i see the word "Most," I think that it's a whole lot greater than half...

The article should read:

"Little more than half of companies won't deploy Windows 7"

A LOT less deceiving.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When i see the word " Most , " I think that it 's a whole lot greater than half.. . The article should read : " Little more than half of companies wo n't deploy Windows 7 " A LOT less deceiving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When i see the word "Most," I think that it's a whole lot greater than half...

The article should read:

"Little more than half of companies won't deploy Windows 7"

A LOT less deceiving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692139</id>
	<title>Re:Where's the business case?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That interviewed IT manager is a jackass if he couldn't make a compelling case for a 2003 to 2010 upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That interviewed IT manager is a jackass if he could n't make a compelling case for a 2003 to 2010 upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That interviewed IT manager is a jackass if he couldn't make a compelling case for a 2003 to 2010 upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689869</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690377</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1247583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A non-Gay, cheap Mac?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A non-Gay , cheap Mac ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A non-Gay, cheap Mac?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689873</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1247581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our company is the same way.  There are one or two legacy applications (nothing I wrote, mind you, third party stuff) that require IE6.  They won't work with IE7, IE8, or FireFox.  So we're waiting on the vendors before we can upgrade IE.  I'm thinking of recommending that we upgrade to IE7 or IE8, however, and set up those people that need IE6 with Xenocode's IE6 sandbox ( <a href="http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/" title="xenocode.com">http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/</a> [xenocode.com] ).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our company is the same way .
There are one or two legacy applications ( nothing I wrote , mind you , third party stuff ) that require IE6 .
They wo n't work with IE7 , IE8 , or FireFox .
So we 're waiting on the vendors before we can upgrade IE .
I 'm thinking of recommending that we upgrade to IE7 or IE8 , however , and set up those people that need IE6 with Xenocode 's IE6 sandbox ( http : //www.xenocode.com/browsers/ [ xenocode.com ] ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our company is the same way.
There are one or two legacy applications (nothing I wrote, mind you, third party stuff) that require IE6.
They won't work with IE7, IE8, or FireFox.
So we're waiting on the vendors before we can upgrade IE.
I'm thinking of recommending that we upgrade to IE7 or IE8, however, and set up those people that need IE6 with Xenocode's IE6 sandbox ( http://www.xenocode.com/browsers/ [xenocode.com] ).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28694403</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247600460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny !? Microsofts promises are only matched by Duke Nukem 4ever...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny ! ?
Microsofts promises are only matched by Duke Nukem 4ever.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny !?
Microsofts promises are only matched by Duke Nukem 4ever...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689649</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they?</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247580240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then by that argument why did they upgrade from NT to server 2003?<br>
With each generation of software it is more intensive then the last.  Then again the hardware is also more intensive.  A person running windows NT/2003 servers won't upgrade to windows 7 because the hardware can't handle it....then again the brand new dell computer is more powerful then that old win nt/2003 server.  Once they upgrade their servers they will upgrade their software.<br> <br>

Internet/web apps is still very much pie in the sky. It has a TON of hurdles before it becomes adopted.  First proponents have to guarantee 100\% up time and second they have to gaurantee 100\% privacy with no bull crap like "we can change the terms of the agreement at anytime", oh and third - the price better be absolutely right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then by that argument why did they upgrade from NT to server 2003 ?
With each generation of software it is more intensive then the last .
Then again the hardware is also more intensive .
A person running windows NT/2003 servers wo n't upgrade to windows 7 because the hardware ca n't handle it....then again the brand new dell computer is more powerful then that old win nt/2003 server .
Once they upgrade their servers they will upgrade their software .
Internet/web apps is still very much pie in the sky .
It has a TON of hurdles before it becomes adopted .
First proponents have to guarantee 100 \ % up time and second they have to gaurantee 100 \ % privacy with no bull crap like " we can change the terms of the agreement at anytime " , oh and third - the price better be absolutely right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then by that argument why did they upgrade from NT to server 2003?
With each generation of software it is more intensive then the last.
Then again the hardware is also more intensive.
A person running windows NT/2003 servers won't upgrade to windows 7 because the hardware can't handle it....then again the brand new dell computer is more powerful then that old win nt/2003 server.
Once they upgrade their servers they will upgrade their software.
Internet/web apps is still very much pie in the sky.
It has a TON of hurdles before it becomes adopted.
First proponents have to guarantee 100\% up time and second they have to gaurantee 100\% privacy with no bull crap like "we can change the terms of the agreement at anytime", oh and third - the price better be absolutely right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689589</id>
	<title>Re:SP2 Syndrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 isn't a major overhaul like Vista.  Instead, it is more of the step from Windows 2000 to XP.</p><p>Server-side, this is more obvious:  Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2, R2 being the same kernel as Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is n't a major overhaul like Vista .
Instead , it is more of the step from Windows 2000 to XP.Server-side , this is more obvious : Windows Server 2008 , and Windows Server 2008 R2 , R2 being the same kernel as Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 isn't a major overhaul like Vista.
Instead, it is more of the step from Windows 2000 to XP.Server-side, this is more obvious:  Windows Server 2008, and Windows Server 2008 R2, R2 being the same kernel as Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690135</id>
	<title>Re:So in 3 months</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1247582280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's be fair - it's not even out yet, and who knows what kind of reception that it will get. Why would they already start planning to deploy something that they haven't even seen yet? Would they base their decision-making off the RC? Sure....</p><p>It's too early for them to look at. While XP still has a long time to receive support, most IT dept's are just going to wait and see. Besides, no one wants to be the first to try it in a corporate environment. They'll want to see how it goes with other companies too, for sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be fair - it 's not even out yet , and who knows what kind of reception that it will get .
Why would they already start planning to deploy something that they have n't even seen yet ?
Would they base their decision-making off the RC ?
Sure....It 's too early for them to look at .
While XP still has a long time to receive support , most IT dept 's are just going to wait and see .
Besides , no one wants to be the first to try it in a corporate environment .
They 'll want to see how it goes with other companies too , for sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be fair - it's not even out yet, and who knows what kind of reception that it will get.
Why would they already start planning to deploy something that they haven't even seen yet?
Would they base their decision-making off the RC?
Sure....It's too early for them to look at.
While XP still has a long time to receive support, most IT dept's are just going to wait and see.
Besides, no one wants to be the first to try it in a corporate environment.
They'll want to see how it goes with other companies too, for sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692479</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247592420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.</p></div><p>Are you drunk? What are you talking about? What "ecosystem"? Some people living on (computing) clouds, and some loonies adding yet another layer of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner-platform\_effect" title="wikipedia.org">inner platforms</a> [wikipedia.org] into the stack?</p><p>Them being loud an gathering many cattle does not mean there is any point to it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>From my p.o.v., my e-mail client (Thunderbird), browser, instant messenger, file-sharing app, and music player are already web(-enabled) apps. What's the point of making them run in the browser again? And with that point in mind, why is it then bad to run them in a browser that is running in the browser, but not to just run them in the browser?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until everything becomes a webapp , the ecosystem almost demands it .
Here 's hoping people realize webapps are where it 's at , for most things.Are you drunk ?
What are you talking about ?
What " ecosystem " ?
Some people living on ( computing ) clouds , and some loonies adding yet another layer of inner platforms [ wikipedia.org ] into the stack ? Them being loud an gathering many cattle does not mean there is any point to it .
: ) From my p.o.v. , my e-mail client ( Thunderbird ) , browser , instant messenger , file-sharing app , and music player are already web ( -enabled ) apps .
What 's the point of making them run in the browser again ?
And with that point in mind , why is it then bad to run them in a browser that is running in the browser , but not to just run them in the browser ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it.
Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.Are you drunk?
What are you talking about?
What "ecosystem"?
Some people living on (computing) clouds, and some loonies adding yet another layer of inner platforms [wikipedia.org] into the stack?Them being loud an gathering many cattle does not mean there is any point to it.
:)From my p.o.v., my e-mail client (Thunderbird), browser, instant messenger, file-sharing app, and music player are already web(-enabled) apps.
What's the point of making them run in the browser again?
And with that point in mind, why is it then bad to run them in a browser that is running in the browser, but not to just run them in the browser?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691139</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247586780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, facebook would work great if every page was hosted on some personal PC that may or may not be online, and it would be great if I could only access my information from 1 computer. There may be a case for more desktop apps, but surely this is not it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , facebook would work great if every page was hosted on some personal PC that may or may not be online , and it would be great if I could only access my information from 1 computer .
There may be a case for more desktop apps , but surely this is not it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, facebook would work great if every page was hosted on some personal PC that may or may not be online, and it would be great if I could only access my information from 1 computer.
There may be a case for more desktop apps, but surely this is not it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690077</id>
	<title>And why upgrade?</title>
	<author>Big Smirk</author>
	<datestamp>1247582040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has more or less contributed to the ultimate demise of the PC in the work place.  Because of all the features, and the lack of reliability stemming from the complexity of all these features, MS has created a maintenance nightmare.  Business critical applications are now all web based (at least at my company, everything from HR to shipping to version control etc.).  Can't remember the last time I fired up MS Word (I have used Excel).</p><p>So why upgrade?  What is the one feature that Windows 7 has that I \_NEED\_?</p><p>More secure?   What is 'more'?  How about rock solid secure to the point I can deploy without special virus protection?  Right now XP seems good enough.</p><p>Better manageability?  Management at this time seems to be locking out users from doing things that are stupid/dangerous and forcing upgrades to cover vulnerabilities.  Please see 1st question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has more or less contributed to the ultimate demise of the PC in the work place .
Because of all the features , and the lack of reliability stemming from the complexity of all these features , MS has created a maintenance nightmare .
Business critical applications are now all web based ( at least at my company , everything from HR to shipping to version control etc. ) .
Ca n't remember the last time I fired up MS Word ( I have used Excel ) .So why upgrade ?
What is the one feature that Windows 7 has that I \ _NEED \ _ ? More secure ?
What is 'more ' ?
How about rock solid secure to the point I can deploy without special virus protection ?
Right now XP seems good enough.Better manageability ?
Management at this time seems to be locking out users from doing things that are stupid/dangerous and forcing upgrades to cover vulnerabilities .
Please see 1st question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has more or less contributed to the ultimate demise of the PC in the work place.
Because of all the features, and the lack of reliability stemming from the complexity of all these features, MS has created a maintenance nightmare.
Business critical applications are now all web based (at least at my company, everything from HR to shipping to version control etc.).
Can't remember the last time I fired up MS Word (I have used Excel).So why upgrade?
What is the one feature that Windows 7 has that I \_NEED\_?More secure?
What is 'more'?
How about rock solid secure to the point I can deploy without special virus protection?
Right now XP seems good enough.Better manageability?
Management at this time seems to be locking out users from doing things that are stupid/dangerous and forcing upgrades to cover vulnerabilities.
Please see 1st question.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692991</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until the web goes down...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until the web goes down.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until the web goes down...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693195</id>
	<title>Some factors ignored in the study</title>
	<author>DeskLazer</author>
	<datestamp>1247595360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First of all, this only polled IT Administrators.  I know of departments where I work at [and even at my old jobs] where IT admins tried to talk users out of upgrading to XP, Vista [and I guess now, Win 7].  The problem is, the user is still the customer, and as much as you want to talk someone out of something, if they're the ones with the $$, you have to do the task.<br> <br>

I used to try to talk people out of switching to XP because 2K was much more stable and for simple things like word processing, internet browsing, etc. it was more than sufficient.  But everyone wanted XP, so I'd help them upgrade [I'm talking both about work and for friends/family].  I recently installed a dual-boot Ubuntu/Win XP setup for my dad, and still he uses XP more.  He wanted to be able to play around in the apps he used before, and if any of these companies are upgrading computers, you can bet that people will want the latest and greatest [assuming Win 7 is able to work the eye-candy into things].<br> <br>

TFA does cite economy as an issue, but most companies are probably thinking "Could it save me more money now to do a full-upgrade and not deal with the downtime later as I have to do it later?" and that might be a mitigating factor.</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , this only polled IT Administrators .
I know of departments where I work at [ and even at my old jobs ] where IT admins tried to talk users out of upgrading to XP , Vista [ and I guess now , Win 7 ] .
The problem is , the user is still the customer , and as much as you want to talk someone out of something , if they 're the ones with the $ $ , you have to do the task .
I used to try to talk people out of switching to XP because 2K was much more stable and for simple things like word processing , internet browsing , etc .
it was more than sufficient .
But everyone wanted XP , so I 'd help them upgrade [ I 'm talking both about work and for friends/family ] .
I recently installed a dual-boot Ubuntu/Win XP setup for my dad , and still he uses XP more .
He wanted to be able to play around in the apps he used before , and if any of these companies are upgrading computers , you can bet that people will want the latest and greatest [ assuming Win 7 is able to work the eye-candy into things ] .
TFA does cite economy as an issue , but most companies are probably thinking " Could it save me more money now to do a full-upgrade and not deal with the downtime later as I have to do it later ?
" and that might be a mitigating factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, this only polled IT Administrators.
I know of departments where I work at [and even at my old jobs] where IT admins tried to talk users out of upgrading to XP, Vista [and I guess now, Win 7].
The problem is, the user is still the customer, and as much as you want to talk someone out of something, if they're the ones with the $$, you have to do the task.
I used to try to talk people out of switching to XP because 2K was much more stable and for simple things like word processing, internet browsing, etc.
it was more than sufficient.
But everyone wanted XP, so I'd help them upgrade [I'm talking both about work and for friends/family].
I recently installed a dual-boot Ubuntu/Win XP setup for my dad, and still he uses XP more.
He wanted to be able to play around in the apps he used before, and if any of these companies are upgrading computers, you can bet that people will want the latest and greatest [assuming Win 7 is able to work the eye-candy into things].
TFA does cite economy as an issue, but most companies are probably thinking "Could it save me more money now to do a full-upgrade and not deal with the downtime later as I have to do it later?
" and that might be a mitigating factor.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</id>
	<title>I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>wjh31</author>
	<datestamp>1247577720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it. I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies. If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end</htmltext>
<tokenext>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it .
I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies .
If 7 Manages everything it promises , im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it.
I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies.
If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692313</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>ifrag</author>
	<datestamp>1247591820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.</p></div></blockquote><p>
You forgot the sarcasm tags, it's ok, we all know it was an honest mistake.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's hoping people realize webapps are where it 's at , for most things .
You forgot the sarcasm tags , it 's ok , we all know it was an honest mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.
You forgot the sarcasm tags, it's ok, we all know it was an honest mistake.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28695667</id>
	<title>No vista, no 7 here</title>
	<author>rec9140</author>
	<datestamp>1247563440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only was vista not a choice, win 7 is not one that will be deployed by this year or next year.....</p><p>XP will be used until we move 100\% to Linux.</p><p>This will be about 8 months to 1 year depending on development of other software, but ms is out at my company.</p><p>No more virus<br>No more overpriced lock in<br>No more $3,000 for software that exists for $0<br>No more loss of performance due to security software<br>No more headaches from the virii du jour</p><p>goodbye ms, and good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only was vista not a choice , win 7 is not one that will be deployed by this year or next year.....XP will be used until we move 100 \ % to Linux.This will be about 8 months to 1 year depending on development of other software , but ms is out at my company.No more virusNo more overpriced lock inNo more $ 3,000 for software that exists for $ 0No more loss of performance due to security softwareNo more headaches from the virii du jourgoodbye ms , and good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only was vista not a choice, win 7 is not one that will be deployed by this year or next year.....XP will be used until we move 100\% to Linux.This will be about 8 months to 1 year depending on development of other software, but ms is out at my company.No more virusNo more overpriced lock inNo more $3,000 for software that exists for $0No more loss of performance due to security softwareNo more headaches from the virii du jourgoodbye ms, and good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28698945</id>
	<title>Re:History lesson</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1247582340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not comparing like with like.</p><p>Win 7 is not competing with the previous version (Vista). It is competing with an even older version (XP) which is 6 years old.</p><p>So it will have everybody buying a new PC using it; everyone sick of Vista upgrading to it; and people who hung onto XP because they hated Vista upgrading to it.</p><p>XP, on the other hand, was competing with the immediate previous version (2000) which was only 3 years old at the time AND was well liked.</p><p>I would expect Win 7 uptake to be higher than XP uptake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not comparing like with like.Win 7 is not competing with the previous version ( Vista ) .
It is competing with an even older version ( XP ) which is 6 years old.So it will have everybody buying a new PC using it ; everyone sick of Vista upgrading to it ; and people who hung onto XP because they hated Vista upgrading to it.XP , on the other hand , was competing with the immediate previous version ( 2000 ) which was only 3 years old at the time AND was well liked.I would expect Win 7 uptake to be higher than XP uptake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not comparing like with like.Win 7 is not competing with the previous version (Vista).
It is competing with an even older version (XP) which is 6 years old.So it will have everybody buying a new PC using it; everyone sick of Vista upgrading to it; and people who hung onto XP because they hated Vista upgrading to it.XP, on the other hand, was competing with the immediate previous version (2000) which was only 3 years old at the time AND was well liked.I would expect Win 7 uptake to be higher than XP uptake.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690339</id>
	<title>Re:My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>Toreo asesino</author>
	<datestamp>1247583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Roaming profiles are a bad idea IMO unless you back them up with size limits...and virus outbreaks become a null-point the minute you don't make everyone a local admin.</p><p>And frankly I don't buy that Mac's are more reliable than PCs; point. Especially, as one AC said if you have an admin with half a brain. Not to mention Mac's have nothing in the way of Active Directory.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roaming profiles are a bad idea IMO unless you back them up with size limits...and virus outbreaks become a null-point the minute you do n't make everyone a local admin.And frankly I do n't buy that Mac 's are more reliable than PCs ; point .
Especially , as one AC said if you have an admin with half a brain .
Not to mention Mac 's have nothing in the way of Active Directory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roaming profiles are a bad idea IMO unless you back them up with size limits...and virus outbreaks become a null-point the minute you don't make everyone a local admin.And frankly I don't buy that Mac's are more reliable than PCs; point.
Especially, as one AC said if you have an admin with half a brain.
Not to mention Mac's have nothing in the way of Active Directory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690923</id>
	<title>5\% Response?</title>
	<author>JeremyGNJ</author>
	<datestamp>1247585760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love articles like this!  This same "study" has been shown on many other websites.  Most of them fess up that the study was sent to 20,000 "IT Admins".  Only about 1000 responded.  So they have a 5\% response to the poll.

Second thing I love is that they dont define who an "IT Admin" really is.  I know a LOT of "admins" who really have no clue what the direction of their IT department is on a 6-12 month view.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love articles like this !
This same " study " has been shown on many other websites .
Most of them fess up that the study was sent to 20,000 " IT Admins " .
Only about 1000 responded .
So they have a 5 \ % response to the poll .
Second thing I love is that they dont define who an " IT Admin " really is .
I know a LOT of " admins " who really have no clue what the direction of their IT department is on a 6-12 month view .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love articles like this!
This same "study" has been shown on many other websites.
Most of them fess up that the study was sent to 20,000 "IT Admins".
Only about 1000 responded.
So they have a 5\% response to the poll.
Second thing I love is that they dont define who an "IT Admin" really is.
I know a LOT of "admins" who really have no clue what the direction of their IT department is on a 6-12 month view.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689779</id>
	<title>Not downgrading</title>
	<author>geeper</author>
	<datestamp>1247580720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the difference here is that although many companies have no plans to upgrade, most won't be downgrading either.  Our plans are not to upgrade existing machines but when new ones come in, we'll allow Win7 to continue to run and not downgrade to XP (like we did with Vista).  This is a big difference between Vista and Win7 and probably successful in MS's eyes considering what happened with Vista.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the difference here is that although many companies have no plans to upgrade , most wo n't be downgrading either .
Our plans are not to upgrade existing machines but when new ones come in , we 'll allow Win7 to continue to run and not downgrade to XP ( like we did with Vista ) .
This is a big difference between Vista and Win7 and probably successful in MS 's eyes considering what happened with Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the difference here is that although many companies have no plans to upgrade, most won't be downgrading either.
Our plans are not to upgrade existing machines but when new ones come in, we'll allow Win7 to continue to run and not downgrade to XP (like we did with Vista).
This is a big difference between Vista and Win7 and probably successful in MS's eyes considering what happened with Vista.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690665</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>grasshoppa</author>
	<datestamp>1247584680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all; different environment then.  Yes, shared platforms were extremely slow, however we have progressed a bit since then.  Not to say the concept is without it's flaws, but we do have quite a bit more experience with the idea of clusters, sans and the like.</p><p>Secondly; the self-hosted blogs and the like were never limited by the amount of bandwidth to the desktop. It's always been a training limitation; a lack of technical ability, either in software or it's user.  Places like facebook and myspace have a vested interest in making sure content is available 24/7, which can not be guaranteed if the data is hosted offsite.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all ; different environment then .
Yes , shared platforms were extremely slow , however we have progressed a bit since then .
Not to say the concept is without it 's flaws , but we do have quite a bit more experience with the idea of clusters , sans and the like.Secondly ; the self-hosted blogs and the like were never limited by the amount of bandwidth to the desktop .
It 's always been a training limitation ; a lack of technical ability , either in software or it 's user .
Places like facebook and myspace have a vested interest in making sure content is available 24/7 , which can not be guaranteed if the data is hosted offsite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all; different environment then.
Yes, shared platforms were extremely slow, however we have progressed a bit since then.
Not to say the concept is without it's flaws, but we do have quite a bit more experience with the idea of clusters, sans and the like.Secondly; the self-hosted blogs and the like were never limited by the amount of bandwidth to the desktop.
It's always been a training limitation; a lack of technical ability, either in software or it's user.
Places like facebook and myspace have a vested interest in making sure content is available 24/7, which can not be guaranteed if the data is hosted offsite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691293</id>
	<title>I can believe that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Windows 7 officially due out in October?  That's a whooping TWO months to ensure that every business application can run as effectively as it is in XP (didn't everyone skip vista in business?) and that their network and infrastructure is ready to handle win7.</p><p>I think anyone who plans on converting their business (anyone with more than 3 PCs to take care of) in two months is not only out of their mind, but should be out of their job.  Don't screw your entire workforce by jumping to quickly into win7 just because it's new and better.  It is, but be sure that all your archaic vendors have caught up with the 21st century first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Windows 7 officially due out in October ?
That 's a whooping TWO months to ensure that every business application can run as effectively as it is in XP ( did n't everyone skip vista in business ?
) and that their network and infrastructure is ready to handle win7.I think anyone who plans on converting their business ( anyone with more than 3 PCs to take care of ) in two months is not only out of their mind , but should be out of their job .
Do n't screw your entire workforce by jumping to quickly into win7 just because it 's new and better .
It is , but be sure that all your archaic vendors have caught up with the 21st century first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Windows 7 officially due out in October?
That's a whooping TWO months to ensure that every business application can run as effectively as it is in XP (didn't everyone skip vista in business?
) and that their network and infrastructure is ready to handle win7.I think anyone who plans on converting their business (anyone with more than 3 PCs to take care of) in two months is not only out of their mind, but should be out of their job.
Don't screw your entire workforce by jumping to quickly into win7 just because it's new and better.
It is, but be sure that all your archaic vendors have caught up with the 21st century first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690741</id>
	<title>Re:My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Mac</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>a lot less expensive</p></div><p>BAHAHAHAHAHAHA</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maca lot less expensiveBAHAHAHAHAHAHA</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maca lot less expensiveBAHAHAHAHAHAHA
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689859</id>
	<title>Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Will Microsoft switch to Windows 7 ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Will Microsoft switch to Windows 7 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Will Microsoft switch to Windows 7 ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433</id>
	<title>no surprise</title>
	<author>owlnation</author>
	<datestamp>1247579220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The interesting figure here isn't the 6/10. It's the 4/10. I'd have to question the sanity of that 40\%.<br> <br>

This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy, and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments. No new OS, from anyone, is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release.<br> <br>

Most business do not upgrade entire systems often. There's plenty that have only switched to XP from 200 in the past 5 years. <br> <br>

There's plenty of bespoke programs and macros that run on every enterprise system. It takes at least a year to figure out how a new OS will work with those. That's not even counting driver issues, hardware issues, and bugs.<br> <br>

Plus there's a productivity issue with switching OS. Do you really want to slow down your staff during a recession?<br> <br>

But specifically for Windows 7, why switch? What is the competitive advantage of doing so? There's no real performance gain. There's no real new features that aren't just bling. Sure, it's a bit more secure, but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.<br> <br>

No, sorry, I'd have to question the business decision of any company that is going to introduce a new OS that will cost them money, productivity, and still have kinks and bugs in it at this early stage in its release.<br> <br>

In 3-5 years, after much internal testing, sure it would make sense. But right now -- corporate suicide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The interesting figure here is n't the 6/10 .
It 's the 4/10 .
I 'd have to question the sanity of that 40 \ % .
This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy , and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments .
No new OS , from anyone , is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release .
Most business do not upgrade entire systems often .
There 's plenty that have only switched to XP from 200 in the past 5 years .
There 's plenty of bespoke programs and macros that run on every enterprise system .
It takes at least a year to figure out how a new OS will work with those .
That 's not even counting driver issues , hardware issues , and bugs .
Plus there 's a productivity issue with switching OS .
Do you really want to slow down your staff during a recession ?
But specifically for Windows 7 , why switch ?
What is the competitive advantage of doing so ?
There 's no real performance gain .
There 's no real new features that are n't just bling .
Sure , it 's a bit more secure , but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well .
No , sorry , I 'd have to question the business decision of any company that is going to introduce a new OS that will cost them money , productivity , and still have kinks and bugs in it at this early stage in its release .
In 3-5 years , after much internal testing , sure it would make sense .
But right now -- corporate suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The interesting figure here isn't the 6/10.
It's the 4/10.
I'd have to question the sanity of that 40\%.
This is not a bash at MS. It is just prudent IT policy, and good business not to use untested software in mission critical environments.
No new OS, from anyone, is guaranteed to be mission critical in its first year of release.
Most business do not upgrade entire systems often.
There's plenty that have only switched to XP from 200 in the past 5 years.
There's plenty of bespoke programs and macros that run on every enterprise system.
It takes at least a year to figure out how a new OS will work with those.
That's not even counting driver issues, hardware issues, and bugs.
Plus there's a productivity issue with switching OS.
Do you really want to slow down your staff during a recession?
But specifically for Windows 7, why switch?
What is the competitive advantage of doing so?
There's no real performance gain.
There's no real new features that aren't just bling.
Sure, it's a bit more secure, but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.
No, sorry, I'd have to question the business decision of any company that is going to introduce a new OS that will cost them money, productivity, and still have kinks and bugs in it at this early stage in its release.
In 3-5 years, after much internal testing, sure it would make sense.
But right now -- corporate suicide.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692545</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications."</p><p>Opera Unite?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Indeed , I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does , except that you own your data , and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications .
" Opera Unite ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.
"Opera Unite?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690359</id>
	<title>Re:I'll deploy Win7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247583300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Likewise, my company skipped over Vista without much of a second thought, but they're all aboard to switch to Win7.</p><p>Of course, it's also due to the fact they got audited by Microsoft and found to be using more copies of some software than our license allowed.  Installing Access and Frontpage or something on everyone's computer when there was a limited allotment, even when people didn't ask for these programs.  (Yes, our IT staff don't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed at times.)</p><p>So, to avoid a harder slap on the wrist, our new MS contract requires us to upgrade to Win7.  I guess that's how MS gets it's numbers padded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Likewise , my company skipped over Vista without much of a second thought , but they 're all aboard to switch to Win7.Of course , it 's also due to the fact they got audited by Microsoft and found to be using more copies of some software than our license allowed .
Installing Access and Frontpage or something on everyone 's computer when there was a limited allotment , even when people did n't ask for these programs .
( Yes , our IT staff do n't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed at times .
) So , to avoid a harder slap on the wrist , our new MS contract requires us to upgrade to Win7 .
I guess that 's how MS gets it 's numbers padded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Likewise, my company skipped over Vista without much of a second thought, but they're all aboard to switch to Win7.Of course, it's also due to the fact they got audited by Microsoft and found to be using more copies of some software than our license allowed.
Installing Access and Frontpage or something on everyone's computer when there was a limited allotment, even when people didn't ask for these programs.
(Yes, our IT staff don't appear to be the sharpest tool in the shed at times.
)So, to avoid a harder slap on the wrist, our new MS contract requires us to upgrade to Win7.
I guess that's how MS gets it's numbers padded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183</id>
	<title>Talk about a misleading title</title>
	<author>gambit3</author>
	<datestamp>1247578140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Have No current Plans" != "Won't Deploy"</p><p>Two years ago, my company had "No Current Plans" to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions, but here we are, with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007.</p><p>"No Current Plans" may just mean just that... they don't have any plans. That's a far stretch from "we won't".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Have No current Plans " ! = " Wo n't Deploy " Two years ago , my company had " No Current Plans " to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions , but here we are , with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007 .
" No Current Plans " may just mean just that... they do n't have any plans .
That 's a far stretch from " we wo n't " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Have No current Plans" != "Won't Deploy"Two years ago, my company had "No Current Plans" to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions, but here we are, with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007.
"No Current Plans" may just mean just that... they don't have any plans.
That's a far stretch from "we won't".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689117</id>
	<title>You don't need a plan</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247577900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You don't need a plan - it'll install itself automatically via windows update.  And then automatically rat on you for piracy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need a plan - it 'll install itself automatically via windows update .
And then automatically rat on you for piracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need a plan - it'll install itself automatically via windows update.
And then automatically rat on you for piracy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28711569</id>
	<title>Re:Their loss</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1247670780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better support for 64bit and memory &gt; 4GB is probably the key driver for us.<br>
<br>
Right now, all of our machines were recently (3 year migration off of Win98) moved up to WinXP in advance of Vista and the sunset of XP.  They're all dual-core, 1.8GHz or faster, 64bit machines, with 2GB RAM (upgradeable to 4GB).  So we're sitting in a very good spot that allowed us to avoid the whole Vista debacle.<br>
<br>
If I wanted, I could roll out Win7 to these machines and probably see good results.  We won't, because we don't nee to spend that money.  And we're also in a bit of batten down the hatches mode until at least 2010 due to the economy.<br>
<br>
However, looking down the road, I can easily see us buying machines with 4GB or 8GB as standard starting in 2010/2011.  Memory is extremely inexpensive now (at least for DDR2).  WinXP will be getting extremely long in the tooth by then, so we'll need to put something more modern on the new machines.<br>
<br>
So I figure in late-2010, or whenever SP1 hits, is when we might migrate existing systems to Win7.  It will depend on how compelling it is and how well it runs on existing machines and whether it will simplify things to have everyone on the same platform.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better support for 64bit and memory &gt; 4GB is probably the key driver for us .
Right now , all of our machines were recently ( 3 year migration off of Win98 ) moved up to WinXP in advance of Vista and the sunset of XP .
They 're all dual-core , 1.8GHz or faster , 64bit machines , with 2GB RAM ( upgradeable to 4GB ) .
So we 're sitting in a very good spot that allowed us to avoid the whole Vista debacle .
If I wanted , I could roll out Win7 to these machines and probably see good results .
We wo n't , because we do n't nee to spend that money .
And we 're also in a bit of batten down the hatches mode until at least 2010 due to the economy .
However , looking down the road , I can easily see us buying machines with 4GB or 8GB as standard starting in 2010/2011 .
Memory is extremely inexpensive now ( at least for DDR2 ) .
WinXP will be getting extremely long in the tooth by then , so we 'll need to put something more modern on the new machines .
So I figure in late-2010 , or whenever SP1 hits , is when we might migrate existing systems to Win7 .
It will depend on how compelling it is and how well it runs on existing machines and whether it will simplify things to have everyone on the same platform .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better support for 64bit and memory &gt; 4GB is probably the key driver for us.
Right now, all of our machines were recently (3 year migration off of Win98) moved up to WinXP in advance of Vista and the sunset of XP.
They're all dual-core, 1.8GHz or faster, 64bit machines, with 2GB RAM (upgradeable to 4GB).
So we're sitting in a very good spot that allowed us to avoid the whole Vista debacle.
If I wanted, I could roll out Win7 to these machines and probably see good results.
We won't, because we don't nee to spend that money.
And we're also in a bit of batten down the hatches mode until at least 2010 due to the economy.
However, looking down the road, I can easily see us buying machines with 4GB or 8GB as standard starting in 2010/2011.
Memory is extremely inexpensive now (at least for DDR2).
WinXP will be getting extremely long in the tooth by then, so we'll need to put something more modern on the new machines.
So I figure in late-2010, or whenever SP1 hits, is when we might migrate existing systems to Win7.
It will depend on how compelling it is and how well it runs on existing machines and whether it will simplify things to have everyone on the same platform.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689709</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>furby076</author>
	<datestamp>1247580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.

In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.</p></div><p>People might leave to what? To Apple? Not likely.  There are always people who transition from apple to ms and ms to apple but, and greater so doing OS upgrades as people search new avenues and reevaluate their needs  but for the most part this will not cause any appreciable (to the companies) change.  Though i find it interesting...now XP is a morass of code.<br> <br>
Webapps are still far into the future...i'd expected windows 9 to come out ebfore web apps become mainstream.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got to be tough .
You ca n't kill off XP like you want to , because people really really might leave .
But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you 've spent all that money on .
In the long run , they 'll switch .
Until everything becomes a webapp , the ecosystem almost demands it .
Here 's hoping people realize webapps are where it 's at , for most things.People might leave to what ?
To Apple ?
Not likely .
There are always people who transition from apple to ms and ms to apple but , and greater so doing OS upgrades as people search new avenues and reevaluate their needs but for the most part this will not cause any appreciable ( to the companies ) change .
Though i find it interesting...now XP is a morass of code .
Webapps are still far into the future...i 'd expected windows 9 to come out ebfore web apps become mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got to be tough.
You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave.
But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.
In the long run, they'll switch.
Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it.
Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.People might leave to what?
To Apple?
Not likely.
There are always people who transition from apple to ms and ms to apple but, and greater so doing OS upgrades as people search new avenues and reevaluate their needs  but for the most part this will not cause any appreciable (to the companies) change.
Though i find it interesting...now XP is a morass of code.
Webapps are still far into the future...i'd expected windows 9 to come out ebfore web apps become mainstream.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689869</id>
	<title>Where's the business case?</title>
	<author>schwit1</author>
	<datestamp>1247581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How will Windows 7 or Office 2010 increase revenue or reduce expenses.
<p>
<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-microsofts-red-headed-stepchild-075?page=0,1&amp;source=IFWNLE\_nlt\_blogs\_2009-07-13" title="infoworld.com">http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-microsofts-red-headed-stepchild-075?page=0,1&amp;source=IFWNLE\_nlt\_blogs\_2009-07-13</a> [infoworld.com]
</p><p>
From the article<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>
"I recently spoke with an IT manager who was budgeting for an Office 2010 upgrade from Office 2003. I casually asked him what features he had deemed important enough to justify a $100,000 budget item. He thought for a minute and admitted that he couldn't think of a single one. So I asked the logical follow-up: Why are you buying it? He had no answer for that either. The $100,000 line item disappeared. He's also sticking with XP."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How will Windows 7 or Office 2010 increase revenue or reduce expenses .
http : //www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-microsofts-red-headed-stepchild-075 ? page = 0,1&amp;source = IFWNLE \ _nlt \ _blogs \ _2009-07-13 [ infoworld.com ] From the article .. . " I recently spoke with an IT manager who was budgeting for an Office 2010 upgrade from Office 2003 .
I casually asked him what features he had deemed important enough to justify a $ 100,000 budget item .
He thought for a minute and admitted that he could n't think of a single one .
So I asked the logical follow-up : Why are you buying it ?
He had no answer for that either .
The $ 100,000 line item disappeared .
He 's also sticking with XP .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How will Windows 7 or Office 2010 increase revenue or reduce expenses.
http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-microsofts-red-headed-stepchild-075?page=0,1&amp;source=IFWNLE\_nlt\_blogs\_2009-07-13 [infoworld.com]

From the article ...
"I recently spoke with an IT manager who was budgeting for an Office 2010 upgrade from Office 2003.
I casually asked him what features he had deemed important enough to justify a $100,000 budget item.
He thought for a minute and admitted that he couldn't think of a single one.
So I asked the logical follow-up: Why are you buying it?
He had no answer for that either.
The $100,000 line item disappeared.
He's also sticking with XP.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690025</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>mwvdlee</author>
	<datestamp>1247581800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wasn't Java supposed to make applications platform-agnostic?<br>Why would webapps do any better than Java?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Was n't Java supposed to make applications platform-agnostic ? Why would webapps do any better than Java ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wasn't Java supposed to make applications platform-agnostic?Why would webapps do any better than Java?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083</id>
	<title>So in 3 months</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's gone from <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/13/1317234" title="slashdot.org">83\% that won't</a> [slashdot.org] to 59.3\%.<br> <br>

Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's gone from 83 \ % that wo n't [ slashdot.org ] to 59.3 \ % .
Based on that , if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's gone from 83\% that won't [slashdot.org] to 59.3\%.
Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692555</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I must be getting older.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?</p></div><p>I remember saying the same thing about XP in regards to Windows 2000...  "It's exactly the same, but with a lego-land interface, and a firewall that won't let you use the apps you want, but allows all the viruses in.  It's bloated and slow.  I want nothing to do with it if I can avoid it."</p><p>Besides, why does it matter that it's bigger than XP? When I first started using XP I had a slow single core processor with less than a gig of ram. I'm now running a Quad core processor with 12 GB of RAM.</p><p>Instead of comparing hardware requirements, why not try comparing relative load the OS puts on the average computer from when XP came out vs now? My current computer is far more capable of handling Windows 7 than my computer was at the time I first installed XP.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I must be getting older.It does n't matter what they call it , it 's still not as fast , and with a small a footprint as XP ? I remember saying the same thing about XP in regards to Windows 2000... " It 's exactly the same , but with a lego-land interface , and a firewall that wo n't let you use the apps you want , but allows all the viruses in .
It 's bloated and slow .
I want nothing to do with it if I can avoid it .
" Besides , why does it matter that it 's bigger than XP ?
When I first started using XP I had a slow single core processor with less than a gig of ram .
I 'm now running a Quad core processor with 12 GB of RAM.Instead of comparing hardware requirements , why not try comparing relative load the OS puts on the average computer from when XP came out vs now ?
My current computer is far more capable of handling Windows 7 than my computer was at the time I first installed XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must be getting older.It doesn't matter what they call it, it's still not as fast, and with a small a footprint as XP?I remember saying the same thing about XP in regards to Windows 2000...  "It's exactly the same, but with a lego-land interface, and a firewall that won't let you use the apps you want, but allows all the viruses in.
It's bloated and slow.
I want nothing to do with it if I can avoid it.
"Besides, why does it matter that it's bigger than XP?
When I first started using XP I had a slow single core processor with less than a gig of ram.
I'm now running a Quad core processor with 12 GB of RAM.Instead of comparing hardware requirements, why not try comparing relative load the OS puts on the average computer from when XP came out vs now?
My current computer is far more capable of handling Windows 7 than my computer was at the time I first installed XP.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690867</id>
	<title>Re:My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>yargnad</author>
	<datestamp>1247585580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Simply because we're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems. A lot more reliable, a lot less expensive, a lot easier to manage.</p></div><p>Oh, that's right. Apple has perfected all of those things.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply because we 're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems .
A lot more reliable , a lot less expensive , a lot easier to manage.Oh , that 's right .
Apple has perfected all of those things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply because we're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems.
A lot more reliable, a lot less expensive, a lot easier to manage.Oh, that's right.
Apple has perfected all of those things.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285</id>
	<title>Re:Their loss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247578620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What does 7 have that they need and don't have with XP?  Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What does 7 have that they need and do n't have with XP ?
Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does 7 have that they need and don't have with XP?
Does your company replace all the furniture every time Herman Miller comes out with a new line?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689543</id>
	<title>VERY misleading article</title>
	<author>code65536</author>
	<datestamp>1247579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, "no plans" does not mean "won't".  It just means that they're not ready yet, or haven't thought about it, or haven't started making preparations for it, etc.</p><p>Second, 40\% who are planning to deploy it is HUGE.  As the survey points out, the first-year adoption rate for XP was 12-14\%.  The survey itself said "This is actually a strong adoption rate" and "a high acceptance of Windows 7".</p><p>This is a case where the TFA (Good Gear Guide, WTF is this?) clearly did not even bother to read the source that they are quoting from.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , " no plans " does not mean " wo n't " .
It just means that they 're not ready yet , or have n't thought about it , or have n't started making preparations for it , etc.Second , 40 \ % who are planning to deploy it is HUGE .
As the survey points out , the first-year adoption rate for XP was 12-14 \ % .
The survey itself said " This is actually a strong adoption rate " and " a high acceptance of Windows 7 " .This is a case where the TFA ( Good Gear Guide , WTF is this ?
) clearly did not even bother to read the source that they are quoting from .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, "no plans" does not mean "won't".
It just means that they're not ready yet, or haven't thought about it, or haven't started making preparations for it, etc.Second, 40\% who are planning to deploy it is HUGE.
As the survey points out, the first-year adoption rate for XP was 12-14\%.
The survey itself said "This is actually a strong adoption rate" and "a high acceptance of Windows 7".This is a case where the TFA (Good Gear Guide, WTF is this?
) clearly did not even bother to read the source that they are quoting from.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690799</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Colonel Korn</author>
	<datestamp>1247585280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it. I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies. If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the end</p></div><p>The IT people at by 50000+ person company say there's no plan for 7 yet, but also expect us to all be using it by the end of next year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it .
I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies .
If 7 Manages everything it promises , im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the endThe IT people at by 50000 + person company say there 's no plan for 7 yet , but also expect us to all be using it by the end of next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but that dosnt mean 6/10 wont deploy it.
I imagine plenty of those are just waiting to see how well or not it plays out for other companies.
If 7 Manages everything it promises, im sure plenty will turn to 7 in the endThe IT people at by 50000+ person company say there's no plan for 7 yet, but also expect us to all be using it by the end of next year.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689611</id>
	<title>Re:Talk about a misleading title</title>
	<author>code65536</author>
	<datestamp>1247580060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The other big problem is that whoever wrote the article obvious did not bother reading the source, because he's missing the historical context (XP's was 12-14\%, the source states).  Seeing as how the "article" is just something on some blog (and was submitted to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. by the owner of that blog... hmm), I guess sensationalizing is better than actually reporting what the source says.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The other big problem is that whoever wrote the article obvious did not bother reading the source , because he 's missing the historical context ( XP 's was 12-14 \ % , the source states ) .
Seeing as how the " article " is just something on some blog ( and was submitted to / .
by the owner of that blog... hmm ) , I guess sensationalizing is better than actually reporting what the source says .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The other big problem is that whoever wrote the article obvious did not bother reading the source, because he's missing the historical context (XP's was 12-14\%, the source states).
Seeing as how the "article" is just something on some blog (and was submitted to /.
by the owner of that blog... hmm), I guess sensationalizing is better than actually reporting what the source says.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690289</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>BVis</author>
	<datestamp>1247582880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most webapps don't take up half your RAM and 75\% of your CPU, and then perform slowly as well.  Granted, IE and Firefox (I know there are others, but they're not worth talking about) aren't exactly slim and trim in the resources department, but they're just compiling for display purposes, not doing any intensive calculations.</p><p>Incidentally, when will Slashdot message threads stop looking like hammered ass in Firefox?  I think the current issues have been around for a year or so.  For such an open-source-centric site like Slashdot, it's really inexcusable to not support the dominant 'alternative' browser to IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most webapps do n't take up half your RAM and 75 \ % of your CPU , and then perform slowly as well .
Granted , IE and Firefox ( I know there are others , but they 're not worth talking about ) are n't exactly slim and trim in the resources department , but they 're just compiling for display purposes , not doing any intensive calculations.Incidentally , when will Slashdot message threads stop looking like hammered ass in Firefox ?
I think the current issues have been around for a year or so .
For such an open-source-centric site like Slashdot , it 's really inexcusable to not support the dominant 'alternative ' browser to IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most webapps don't take up half your RAM and 75\% of your CPU, and then perform slowly as well.
Granted, IE and Firefox (I know there are others, but they're not worth talking about) aren't exactly slim and trim in the resources department, but they're just compiling for display purposes, not doing any intensive calculations.Incidentally, when will Slashdot message threads stop looking like hammered ass in Firefox?
I think the current issues have been around for a year or so.
For such an open-source-centric site like Slashdot, it's really inexcusable to not support the dominant 'alternative' browser to IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689783</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Plenty will turn to 7 in the end.</p></div><p>Fixed that for ya.  By then, everyone else will use linux.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Plenty will turn to 7 in the end.Fixed that for ya .
By then , everyone else will use linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Plenty will turn to 7 in the end.Fixed that for ya.
By then, everyone else will use linux.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689979</id>
	<title>History lesson</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1247581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They've gone through the same thing with each version of Windows that's been released. In 2003, less than 10\% of corporate PCs were carrying XP. <a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows-XP-Adoption-Rates-Slow/1118943913" title="betanews.com">In 2005, it had only gone up to 38\%.</a> [betanews.com] That's an OS that'd been out for more than three years, and was up against the incumbent Win2000. If Win7 can hit about 40\% within a year against an incumbent XP, then that's actually incredible progress.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've gone through the same thing with each version of Windows that 's been released .
In 2003 , less than 10 \ % of corporate PCs were carrying XP .
In 2005 , it had only gone up to 38 \ % .
[ betanews.com ] That 's an OS that 'd been out for more than three years , and was up against the incumbent Win2000 .
If Win7 can hit about 40 \ % within a year against an incumbent XP , then that 's actually incredible progress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've gone through the same thing with each version of Windows that's been released.
In 2003, less than 10\% of corporate PCs were carrying XP.
In 2005, it had only gone up to 38\%.
[betanews.com] That's an OS that'd been out for more than three years, and was up against the incumbent Win2000.
If Win7 can hit about 40\% within a year against an incumbent XP, then that's actually incredible progress.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692353</id>
	<title>Re:I'll deploy Win7</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247591940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A millitary (manufacturing) facility, running XP?<br>Does nobody think that this is pretty scary in itself?</p><p>Imagine the displays there showing the infamous Playmobil design, and in front of it a big colorful set of buttons that honk when you hit/push them.<br>And you suddenly have to think of the movie Idiocracy. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A millitary ( manufacturing ) facility , running XP ? Does nobody think that this is pretty scary in itself ? Imagine the displays there showing the infamous Playmobil design , and in front of it a big colorful set of buttons that honk when you hit/push them.And you suddenly have to think of the movie Idiocracy .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A millitary (manufacturing) facility, running XP?Does nobody think that this is pretty scary in itself?Imagine the displays there showing the infamous Playmobil design, and in front of it a big colorful set of buttons that honk when you hit/push them.And you suddenly have to think of the movie Idiocracy.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690523</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28694401</id>
	<title>Nothing to do with Vista or 7 - it's IE 6</title>
	<author>Admodieus</author>
	<datestamp>1247600460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When a company considers migrating to Windows 7, the only thing preventing the project from getting the green light is not the price of hardware that is needed to run it (which is cheap these days) or the security aspects (quite good) - it's the fact that Windows 7 comes with the standards-compliant IE 8. In other words, IE 6 is gone for good.

Almost every company runs at least one web application or portal that only works in IE 6 because of years of standards breaking on Microsoft's part. If they migrated to 7 as well as IE8, many of these applications and portals would break. The developers behind these applications (sometimes within the company) would rather not redesign the site to work in IE8/Firefox/Safari/Chrome; instead, they tell management that any migration away from XP and IE6 is suicide. Despite IE8 having a "Compatibility Mode" as well as the fact that it defaults to the old IE6 standards when visiting Intranet sites, many companies are too afraid of breaking their mission critical web applications.

The problem with migration to 7 is a browser issue, not an OS one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When a company considers migrating to Windows 7 , the only thing preventing the project from getting the green light is not the price of hardware that is needed to run it ( which is cheap these days ) or the security aspects ( quite good ) - it 's the fact that Windows 7 comes with the standards-compliant IE 8 .
In other words , IE 6 is gone for good .
Almost every company runs at least one web application or portal that only works in IE 6 because of years of standards breaking on Microsoft 's part .
If they migrated to 7 as well as IE8 , many of these applications and portals would break .
The developers behind these applications ( sometimes within the company ) would rather not redesign the site to work in IE8/Firefox/Safari/Chrome ; instead , they tell management that any migration away from XP and IE6 is suicide .
Despite IE8 having a " Compatibility Mode " as well as the fact that it defaults to the old IE6 standards when visiting Intranet sites , many companies are too afraid of breaking their mission critical web applications .
The problem with migration to 7 is a browser issue , not an OS one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When a company considers migrating to Windows 7, the only thing preventing the project from getting the green light is not the price of hardware that is needed to run it (which is cheap these days) or the security aspects (quite good) - it's the fact that Windows 7 comes with the standards-compliant IE 8.
In other words, IE 6 is gone for good.
Almost every company runs at least one web application or portal that only works in IE 6 because of years of standards breaking on Microsoft's part.
If they migrated to 7 as well as IE8, many of these applications and portals would break.
The developers behind these applications (sometimes within the company) would rather not redesign the site to work in IE8/Firefox/Safari/Chrome; instead, they tell management that any migration away from XP and IE6 is suicide.
Despite IE8 having a "Compatibility Mode" as well as the fact that it defaults to the old IE6 standards when visiting Intranet sites, many companies are too afraid of breaking their mission critical web applications.
The problem with migration to 7 is a browser issue, not an OS one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689337</id>
	<title>Bug fixed Vista?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247578860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its system requirements are higher than Vistas.  With more overhead, how is it supposed to run well on netbooks (as claimed)?<br>If it runs smoother than Vista, why shouldnt it be treated as a version of Vista with the bugs fixed?  Hard to justify paying additional for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its system requirements are higher than Vistas .
With more overhead , how is it supposed to run well on netbooks ( as claimed ) ? If it runs smoother than Vista , why shouldnt it be treated as a version of Vista with the bugs fixed ?
Hard to justify paying additional for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its system requirements are higher than Vistas.
With more overhead, how is it supposed to run well on netbooks (as claimed)?If it runs smoother than Vista, why shouldnt it be treated as a version of Vista with the bugs fixed?
Hard to justify paying additional for that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689461</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My company is also facing the same problem. Our callcenter is still using Siebel 7, which could only run on IE 6. Theoretically it can run on IE 7 with some patch, but it is not stable and buggy.The management decided to standardize the platform to use windows XP with IE 6. Some other callcenters are still using Windows 2000 Pro.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My company is also facing the same problem .
Our callcenter is still using Siebel 7 , which could only run on IE 6 .
Theoretically it can run on IE 7 with some patch , but it is not stable and buggy.The management decided to standardize the platform to use windows XP with IE 6 .
Some other callcenters are still using Windows 2000 Pro .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company is also facing the same problem.
Our callcenter is still using Siebel 7, which could only run on IE 6.
Theoretically it can run on IE 7 with some patch, but it is not stable and buggy.The management decided to standardize the platform to use windows XP with IE 6.
Some other callcenters are still using Windows 2000 Pro.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689121</id>
	<title>6 in 10?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>6 in 10? not a very big sample!</htmltext>
<tokenext>6 in 10 ?
not a very big sample !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6 in 10?
not a very big sample!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692755</id>
	<title>Re:Talk about a misleading title</title>
	<author>forkazoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247593680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"Have No current Plans" != "Won't Deploy"</p><p>Two years ago, my company had "No Current Plans" to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions, but here we are, with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007.</p><p>"No Current Plans" may just mean just that... they don't have any plans. That's a far stretch from "we won't".</p></div></blockquote><p>Huzzah!  That was basically my reaction.  I want to know who these crazy people are that think they have specific plans for deploying a product that doesn't even exist.  I mean, it's not like MS is some wonderkompany that always delivers everything they promise.  Just like any vendor, they sometimes let their mouth get ahead of their products.  Consequently, anybody who has a specific timeframe for deployment of something they can't have tested and researched or anything is crazy.  Or maybe those companies just buy whatever off the shelf from Best Buy and hope that whatever apps they use will run.  I guess that type of model guarantees some Win7 deployments before year-end.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Have No current Plans " ! = " Wo n't Deploy " Two years ago , my company had " No Current Plans " to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions , but here we are , with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007 .
" No Current Plans " may just mean just that... they do n't have any plans .
That 's a far stretch from " we wo n't " .Huzzah !
That was basically my reaction .
I want to know who these crazy people are that think they have specific plans for deploying a product that does n't even exist .
I mean , it 's not like MS is some wonderkompany that always delivers everything they promise .
Just like any vendor , they sometimes let their mouth get ahead of their products .
Consequently , anybody who has a specific timeframe for deployment of something they ca n't have tested and researched or anything is crazy .
Or maybe those companies just buy whatever off the shelf from Best Buy and hope that whatever apps they use will run .
I guess that type of model guarantees some Win7 deployments before year-end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Have No current Plans" != "Won't Deploy"Two years ago, my company had "No Current Plans" to move our MS Applications to their 2007 versions, but here we are, with Office/Exchange/Sharepoint all 2007.
"No Current Plans" may just mean just that... they don't have any plans.
That's a far stretch from "we won't".Huzzah!
That was basically my reaction.
I want to know who these crazy people are that think they have specific plans for deploying a product that doesn't even exist.
I mean, it's not like MS is some wonderkompany that always delivers everything they promise.
Just like any vendor, they sometimes let their mouth get ahead of their products.
Consequently, anybody who has a specific timeframe for deployment of something they can't have tested and researched or anything is crazy.
Or maybe those companies just buy whatever off the shelf from Best Buy and hope that whatever apps they use will run.
I guess that type of model guarantees some Win7 deployments before year-end.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689803</id>
	<title>The Trick of Wording the Question.</title>
	<author>neo</author>
	<datestamp>1247580840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take these two questions:</p><p>A. Do you have a plan to move to Windows 7?<br>B. Do you plan to move to Windows 7?</p><p>Obviously A  B by a substantial margin.  The question isn't a fair assessment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take these two questions : A. Do you have a plan to move to Windows 7 ? B .
Do you plan to move to Windows 7 ? Obviously A B by a substantial margin .
The question is n't a fair assessment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take these two questions:A. Do you have a plan to move to Windows 7?B.
Do you plan to move to Windows 7?Obviously A  B by a substantial margin.
The question isn't a fair assessment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28697233</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>SETIGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1247570280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year...</p></div><p>
It does make you wonder what the other four are smoking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year.. . It does make you wonder what the other four are smoking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year...
It does make you wonder what the other four are smoking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690041</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>sunking2</author>
	<datestamp>1247581860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>A large business/corp usually has some sort of refresh schedule for machines. This is somewhere between 3-5 years. That means at most 33\% of corps would even fall within the realm of having to make the decision. Realistically unless you are doing refreshes sometime after mid 2010 its not really an option. And anyone much later than that really has no need to make a decision yet. Here, we just started our refreshes, which means XP until the next round in 4 or so years. That's a long way of to commit to anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A large business/corp usually has some sort of refresh schedule for machines .
This is somewhere between 3-5 years .
That means at most 33 \ % of corps would even fall within the realm of having to make the decision .
Realistically unless you are doing refreshes sometime after mid 2010 its not really an option .
And anyone much later than that really has no need to make a decision yet .
Here , we just started our refreshes , which means XP until the next round in 4 or so years .
That 's a long way of to commit to anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A large business/corp usually has some sort of refresh schedule for machines.
This is somewhere between 3-5 years.
That means at most 33\% of corps would even fall within the realm of having to make the decision.
Realistically unless you are doing refreshes sometime after mid 2010 its not really an option.
And anyone much later than that really has no need to make a decision yet.
Here, we just started our refreshes, which means XP until the next round in 4 or so years.
That's a long way of to commit to anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689711</id>
	<title>why buy it when your going to replace the machine?</title>
	<author>sgt scrub</author>
	<datestamp>1247580420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>6:10 wont deploy it because 8:10 machines get replaced after 2-3 years.  6:10 are 2-3 year old machines still running XP.   the cost of windows 7 will be added to the cost of 4:5 machines machines for sale.  therefore, guesstimation odds say 6:10 machines will be replaced with windows7 machines.  why buy os licenses when you are going to end up replacing the machines anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>6 : 10 wont deploy it because 8 : 10 machines get replaced after 2-3 years .
6 : 10 are 2-3 year old machines still running XP .
the cost of windows 7 will be added to the cost of 4 : 5 machines machines for sale .
therefore , guesstimation odds say 6 : 10 machines will be replaced with windows7 machines .
why buy os licenses when you are going to end up replacing the machines anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>6:10 wont deploy it because 8:10 machines get replaced after 2-3 years.
6:10 are 2-3 year old machines still running XP.
the cost of windows 7 will be added to the cost of 4:5 machines machines for sale.
therefore, guesstimation odds say 6:10 machines will be replaced with windows7 machines.
why buy os licenses when you are going to end up replacing the machines anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693537</id>
	<title>Microsoft extends XP downgrade option to 2101</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1247596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>REAL VIRTUALITY, Seattle, Thursday 2099 -- Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system <a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/07/01/microsoft-extends-xp-downgrade-option-to-2101/" title="today.com">to April 2101</a> [today.com] after criticism from large customers and analysts. This is the fifty-sixth extension of XP's availability since 2008.

</p><p>Through successive releases of Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system, demand for XP has remained an important factor for businesses relying on stable XP-specific software and installations, who have pushed back strongly against the software company's attempts to move them to later versions. Windows administration skills have become rare in recent years and consultants have demanded high fees. Reviving Windows administrators from cryogenic freezing has proven insufficient to fill the market gap, as almost all begged to work on COBOL instead.

</p><p>"Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible," said William Gates V, CEO and great-grandson of the company founder. "Spare change?"

</p><p>Microsoft Corporation, along with Monsanto Corporation and the RIAA, exists as a protected species in the Seattle Memorial Glass Crater Bad Ideas And Warnings To The Future National Park in north-west Washington on the radioactive remains of what was once the planet Earth, under the protection of our Linux-based superintelligent robot artificial intelligence overlords. Company revenues for 2098 were over $15.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>REAL VIRTUALITY , Seattle , Thursday 2099 -- Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system to April 2101 [ today.com ] after criticism from large customers and analysts .
This is the fifty-sixth extension of XP 's availability since 2008 .
Through successive releases of Microsoft 's flagship Windows operating system , demand for XP has remained an important factor for businesses relying on stable XP-specific software and installations , who have pushed back strongly against the software company 's attempts to move them to later versions .
Windows administration skills have become rare in recent years and consultants have demanded high fees .
Reviving Windows administrators from cryogenic freezing has proven insufficient to fill the market gap , as almost all begged to work on COBOL instead .
" Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible , " said William Gates V , CEO and great-grandson of the company founder .
" Spare change ?
" Microsoft Corporation , along with Monsanto Corporation and the RIAA , exists as a protected species in the Seattle Memorial Glass Crater Bad Ideas And Warnings To The Future National Park in north-west Washington on the radioactive remains of what was once the planet Earth , under the protection of our Linux-based superintelligent robot artificial intelligence overlords .
Company revenues for 2098 were over $ 15 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>REAL VIRTUALITY, Seattle, Thursday 2099 -- Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system to April 2101 [today.com] after criticism from large customers and analysts.
This is the fifty-sixth extension of XP's availability since 2008.
Through successive releases of Microsoft's flagship Windows operating system, demand for XP has remained an important factor for businesses relying on stable XP-specific software and installations, who have pushed back strongly against the software company's attempts to move them to later versions.
Windows administration skills have become rare in recent years and consultants have demanded high fees.
Reviving Windows administrators from cryogenic freezing has proven insufficient to fill the market gap, as almost all begged to work on COBOL instead.
"Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible," said William Gates V, CEO and great-grandson of the company founder.
"Spare change?
"

Microsoft Corporation, along with Monsanto Corporation and the RIAA, exists as a protected species in the Seattle Memorial Glass Crater Bad Ideas And Warnings To The Future National Park in north-west Washington on the radioactive remains of what was once the planet Earth, under the protection of our Linux-based superintelligent robot artificial intelligence overlords.
Company revenues for 2098 were over $15.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141</id>
	<title>Their loss</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Six in 10 companies are lazy and wish to continue living in the stone age with XP.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Six in 10 companies are lazy and wish to continue living in the stone age with XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Six in 10 companies are lazy and wish to continue living in the stone age with XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689401</id>
	<title>It would be news if they DID</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet.  Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments <i>today</i>, planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.</p><p>Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft's first (at <i>least</i>) service pack before purchasing any of their products, and there's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.</p><p>So I really can't see why this article's statistics are considered newsworthy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's mid-July , and Windows 7 is n't even released yet .
Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments today , planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft 's first ( at least ) service pack before purchasing any of their products , and there 's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.So I really ca n't see why this article 's statistics are considered newsworthy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's mid-July, and Windows 7 isn't even released yet.
Even if companies started testing Windows 7 in their environments today, planning to deploy it before the end of the year would be pretty fast for any mid-to-large company.Combine that with the general wisdom that you should wait for Microsoft's first (at least) service pack before purchasing any of their products, and there's an even stronger reason for companies to take their time.So I really can't see why this article's statistics are considered newsworthy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690915</id>
	<title>Re:Why would they?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1247585760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As drivers stopped supporting Windows 2000, your choices become more and more limited. This is how Windows 7 will be forced into the marketplace as well, I'm sure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As drivers stopped supporting Windows 2000 , your choices become more and more limited .
This is how Windows 7 will be forced into the marketplace as well , I 'm sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As drivers stopped supporting Windows 2000, your choices become more and more limited.
This is how Windows 7 will be forced into the marketplace as well, I'm sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690281</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>With an X-UA-Compatible meta tag, you can force IE 8 to render a page like IE 6. Use it and reduce the headaches to a bare minimum. The rest of the Internet will thank you.
<p>
IE 8 has "three modes: Quirks, Strict, and Standard. When there is an old DOCTYPE or when there is no DOCTYPE, IE renders it like IE5 would (quirks mode). When a special meta element or its corresponding HTTP header is included in a web page, IE8 will render that page like IE7 would (strict mode). In all other cases, IE8 renders pages with its own engine (standard mode). Users can switch between the three modes with a few clicks."</p><p>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IE\_8#Version\_targeting\_and\_backwards\_compatibility" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Link</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With an X-UA-Compatible meta tag , you can force IE 8 to render a page like IE 6 .
Use it and reduce the headaches to a bare minimum .
The rest of the Internet will thank you .
IE 8 has " three modes : Quirks , Strict , and Standard .
When there is an old DOCTYPE or when there is no DOCTYPE , IE renders it like IE5 would ( quirks mode ) .
When a special meta element or its corresponding HTTP header is included in a web page , IE8 will render that page like IE7 would ( strict mode ) .
In all other cases , IE8 renders pages with its own engine ( standard mode ) .
Users can switch between the three modes with a few clicks .
" Link [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With an X-UA-Compatible meta tag, you can force IE 8 to render a page like IE 6.
Use it and reduce the headaches to a bare minimum.
The rest of the Internet will thank you.
IE 8 has "three modes: Quirks, Strict, and Standard.
When there is an old DOCTYPE or when there is no DOCTYPE, IE renders it like IE5 would (quirks mode).
When a special meta element or its corresponding HTTP header is included in a web page, IE8 will render that page like IE7 would (strict mode).
In all other cases, IE8 renders pages with its own engine (standard mode).
Users can switch between the three modes with a few clicks.
"
Link [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689505</id>
	<title>surprised?</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1247579520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey. Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7.</p></div></blockquote><p>Is anyone surprised?</p><p>IT Administrators are typically fairly conservative and cautious.  Most folks will wait until SP1 is released.  At the very least they'll wait until a few months after release so they can get real-world usage reports.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year , according to a new survey .
Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey , 59.3 percent said they did n't have a plan to deploy Windows 7.Is anyone surprised ? IT Administrators are typically fairly conservative and cautious .
Most folks will wait until SP1 is released .
At the very least they 'll wait until a few months after release so they can get real-world usage reports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly six in 10 companies have no current plans to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year, according to a new survey.
Of 1,100 IT administrators who responded to the survey, 59.3 percent said they didn't have a plan to deploy Windows 7.Is anyone surprised?IT Administrators are typically fairly conservative and cautious.
Most folks will wait until SP1 is released.
At the very least they'll wait until a few months after release so they can get real-world usage reports.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691593</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1247588820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends very much on the company.</p><p>Most places I've worked (large and small), 3-5 years "refresh" doesn't mean "everyone automatically gets a new machine after 3-5 years whether they need it or not".  It means "If someone's PC packs up after 3-5 years for whatever reason, we won't dedicate any time to fixing it".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends very much on the company.Most places I 've worked ( large and small ) , 3-5 years " refresh " does n't mean " everyone automatically gets a new machine after 3-5 years whether they need it or not " .
It means " If someone 's PC packs up after 3-5 years for whatever reason , we wo n't dedicate any time to fixing it " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends very much on the company.Most places I've worked (large and small), 3-5 years "refresh" doesn't mean "everyone automatically gets a new machine after 3-5 years whether they need it or not".
It means "If someone's PC packs up after 3-5 years for whatever reason, we won't dedicate any time to fixing it".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689529</id>
	<title>Tabloid</title>
	<author>trifish</author>
	<datestamp>1247579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The tabloid title says "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7". Whereas the article says they have [b]currently[/b] no such plans. That's quite a significant difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The tabloid title says " Most Companies Wo n't Deploy Windows 7 " .
Whereas the article says they have [ b ] currently [ /b ] no such plans .
That 's quite a significant difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The tabloid title says "Most Companies Won't Deploy Windows 7".
Whereas the article says they have [b]currently[/b] no such plans.
That's quite a significant difference.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690169</id>
	<title>Re:no surprise</title>
	<author>asylumx</author>
	<datestamp>1247582460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Plans to upgrade" does not mean "Going to upgrade as soon as it's released."  I'd say it's actually rather smart to have *PLANS* of how to handle this upgrade very early on, that way when you have users asking for it, you can tell them very easily what will have to happen before you'll upgrade them.
<br> <br>
If you say "I'm waiting until SP2" like a lot of people have already said... guess what, you have plans.
<br> <br>
Really, this article is incredibly anti-newsworthy but let's face it, it's spun in a way that makes MS look bad and that's really all it takes to make it on Slashdot, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Plans to upgrade " does not mean " Going to upgrade as soon as it 's released .
" I 'd say it 's actually rather smart to have * PLANS * of how to handle this upgrade very early on , that way when you have users asking for it , you can tell them very easily what will have to happen before you 'll upgrade them .
If you say " I 'm waiting until SP2 " like a lot of people have already said... guess what , you have plans .
Really , this article is incredibly anti-newsworthy but let 's face it , it 's spun in a way that makes MS look bad and that 's really all it takes to make it on Slashdot , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Plans to upgrade" does not mean "Going to upgrade as soon as it's released.
"  I'd say it's actually rather smart to have *PLANS* of how to handle this upgrade very early on, that way when you have users asking for it, you can tell them very easily what will have to happen before you'll upgrade them.
If you say "I'm waiting until SP2" like a lot of people have already said... guess what, you have plans.
Really, this article is incredibly anti-newsworthy but let's face it, it's spun in a way that makes MS look bad and that's really all it takes to make it on Slashdot, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689267</id>
	<title>Re:Their loss</title>
	<author>bconway</author>
	<datestamp>1247578500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of sad that Microsoft peaked with XP SP2, no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of sad that Microsoft peaked with XP SP2 , no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of sad that Microsoft peaked with XP SP2, no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690143</id>
	<title>People being to optimistic</title>
	<author>Jack Sombra</author>
	<datestamp>1247582280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only thing surprising is that 4/10 companies do plan to upgrade next year (at this moment, doubt they will stick to it), I would have expected 1/10 at best.</p><p>We are in the middle of world recession, IT budgets have been slashed all over and considering the amount of work a large enterprise has to do to upgrade a desktop OS (all apps, either off the shelf or bespoke have to be tested and upgraded as necessary) I doubt even 1/10 will actually manage to upgrade next year</p><p>Windows 7 roll out will not really begin for most major companies until 2011 financial year at the earliest, until then it will mainly be small companies and home users and possibly places that already upgraded to vista if there are not to many incompatibilities or differences and they have the budget for it</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only thing surprising is that 4/10 companies do plan to upgrade next year ( at this moment , doubt they will stick to it ) , I would have expected 1/10 at best.We are in the middle of world recession , IT budgets have been slashed all over and considering the amount of work a large enterprise has to do to upgrade a desktop OS ( all apps , either off the shelf or bespoke have to be tested and upgraded as necessary ) I doubt even 1/10 will actually manage to upgrade next yearWindows 7 roll out will not really begin for most major companies until 2011 financial year at the earliest , until then it will mainly be small companies and home users and possibly places that already upgraded to vista if there are not to many incompatibilities or differences and they have the budget for it</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only thing surprising is that 4/10 companies do plan to upgrade next year (at this moment, doubt they will stick to it), I would have expected 1/10 at best.We are in the middle of world recession, IT budgets have been slashed all over and considering the amount of work a large enterprise has to do to upgrade a desktop OS (all apps, either off the shelf or bespoke have to be tested and upgraded as necessary) I doubt even 1/10 will actually manage to upgrade next yearWindows 7 roll out will not really begin for most major companies until 2011 financial year at the earliest, until then it will mainly be small companies and home users and possibly places that already upgraded to vista if there are not to many incompatibilities or differences and they have the budget for it</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689769</id>
	<title>Win7?  Were still dealing with Vista.</title>
	<author>TheLongshot</author>
	<datestamp>1247580660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The customer I'm working for won't be deploying Windows 7 anytime soon because they are in the middle of rolling out Vista.  Of course we kinda thought about waiting, but to deploy a new operating system requires lots and lots of testing to make sure that most of the applications work.  It probably takes almost a year to get it to the point where it can be approved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The customer I 'm working for wo n't be deploying Windows 7 anytime soon because they are in the middle of rolling out Vista .
Of course we kinda thought about waiting , but to deploy a new operating system requires lots and lots of testing to make sure that most of the applications work .
It probably takes almost a year to get it to the point where it can be approved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The customer I'm working for won't be deploying Windows 7 anytime soon because they are in the middle of rolling out Vista.
Of course we kinda thought about waiting, but to deploy a new operating system requires lots and lots of testing to make sure that most of the applications work.
It probably takes almost a year to get it to the point where it can be approved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690325</id>
	<title>Re:Their loss</title>
	<author>Fr33thot</author>
	<datestamp>1247583060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Better security.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Better security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better security.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689549</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>squoozer</author>
	<datestamp>1247579760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Slow down cowboy. I make a good living writing webapps so if anyone should want everything to be delivered as a webapp it should be me but I just don't see it happening in the near future. On paper there is nothing stopping it from happening, we've been down the thin client road before and some of the new webapps are very feature rich. In reality though I think we will hit many of the same problems thin clients did. In fact in many respects I think we are starting from a worse position because network latency is much higher over the Internet than it is over a local network. Combine that with the fact that all the applications are developed in Javascript and presented through a multitude of browsers and you have a difficult target to hit.</p><p>Long live the desktop application!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Slow down cowboy .
I make a good living writing webapps so if anyone should want everything to be delivered as a webapp it should be me but I just do n't see it happening in the near future .
On paper there is nothing stopping it from happening , we 've been down the thin client road before and some of the new webapps are very feature rich .
In reality though I think we will hit many of the same problems thin clients did .
In fact in many respects I think we are starting from a worse position because network latency is much higher over the Internet than it is over a local network .
Combine that with the fact that all the applications are developed in Javascript and presented through a multitude of browsers and you have a difficult target to hit.Long live the desktop application !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slow down cowboy.
I make a good living writing webapps so if anyone should want everything to be delivered as a webapp it should be me but I just don't see it happening in the near future.
On paper there is nothing stopping it from happening, we've been down the thin client road before and some of the new webapps are very feature rich.
In reality though I think we will hit many of the same problems thin clients did.
In fact in many respects I think we are starting from a worse position because network latency is much higher over the Internet than it is over a local network.
Combine that with the fact that all the applications are developed in Javascript and presented through a multitude of browsers and you have a difficult target to hit.Long live the desktop application!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689365</id>
	<title>No surprise there then</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1247578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Everywhere I've ever worked has taken the approach "let's give the new version time for the bugs to be shaken out.  Then we'll see how they get on and make a decision".  This was the case in the days of Win2K, Windows XP and Vista.</p><p>Vista broke a lot of things while bringing nothing particularly beneficial (at least for a business) to the table.  Anyone who hadn't already paid for it through something like Software Assurance was therefore very likely to say "No thanks".</p><p>18 months from now, however, USB3 will start to become more widespread and I bet we won't see USB3 support in XP.  Frankly, that's about the only thing I can think of that Windows 7 might be able to offer.  And seeing as USB took years to get from "what's that funny rectangular socket on the back?" to mainstream, I'm not holding my breath.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Everywhere I 've ever worked has taken the approach " let 's give the new version time for the bugs to be shaken out .
Then we 'll see how they get on and make a decision " .
This was the case in the days of Win2K , Windows XP and Vista.Vista broke a lot of things while bringing nothing particularly beneficial ( at least for a business ) to the table .
Anyone who had n't already paid for it through something like Software Assurance was therefore very likely to say " No thanks " .18 months from now , however , USB3 will start to become more widespread and I bet we wo n't see USB3 support in XP .
Frankly , that 's about the only thing I can think of that Windows 7 might be able to offer .
And seeing as USB took years to get from " what 's that funny rectangular socket on the back ?
" to mainstream , I 'm not holding my breath .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Everywhere I've ever worked has taken the approach "let's give the new version time for the bugs to be shaken out.
Then we'll see how they get on and make a decision".
This was the case in the days of Win2K, Windows XP and Vista.Vista broke a lot of things while bringing nothing particularly beneficial (at least for a business) to the table.
Anyone who hadn't already paid for it through something like Software Assurance was therefore very likely to say "No thanks".18 months from now, however, USB3 will start to become more widespread and I bet we won't see USB3 support in XP.
Frankly, that's about the only thing I can think of that Windows 7 might be able to offer.
And seeing as USB took years to get from "what's that funny rectangular socket on the back?
" to mainstream, I'm not holding my breath.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689775</id>
	<title>#iRc.tsrolltalk.com</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247580660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">you are a screaming were taken over as to 3hich *BSD is dying.  F4ct: bureaucratic and future at all</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>you are a screaming were taken over as to 3hich * BSD is dying .
F4ct : bureaucratic and future at all [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are a screaming were taken over as to 3hich *BSD is dying.
F4ct: bureaucratic and future at all [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693323</id>
	<title>Where is the "Bleeding Obvious" tag?</title>
	<author>aix tom</author>
	<datestamp>1247595900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any company I worked for so far NEVER made any plans to to even begin TESTING anything major until the equivalent of SP1 was out at least a few months.</p><p>With that testing usually taking up at least a year, the "deployment" phase when the test were successful would start around the time the NEXT version comes out.</p><p>So I predict that IF we ever deploy windows 7 it would most likely be a few month before windows 8 comes out. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any company I worked for so far NEVER made any plans to to even begin TESTING anything major until the equivalent of SP1 was out at least a few months.With that testing usually taking up at least a year , the " deployment " phase when the test were successful would start around the time the NEXT version comes out.So I predict that IF we ever deploy windows 7 it would most likely be a few month before windows 8 comes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any company I worked for so far NEVER made any plans to to even begin TESTING anything major until the equivalent of SP1 was out at least a few months.With that testing usually taking up at least a year, the "deployment" phase when the test were successful would start around the time the NEXT version comes out.So I predict that IF we ever deploy windows 7 it would most likely be a few month before windows 8 comes out. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689103</id>
	<title>good for me</title>
	<author>GarretSidzaka</author>
	<datestamp>1247577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this might buy some time for XP users</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this might buy some time for XP users</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this might buy some time for XP users</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023</id>
	<title>My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply because we're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems. A lot more reliable, a lot less expensive, a lot easier to manage.</p><p>No flame to Dell or Microsoft intended but their tandem has been biting the company in the behind for quite a while whether it be annoyingly small issues (roaming profiles not syncing correctly) or larger issues like virus outbreaks (even with full commercial anti-virus software), data loss when using SMB and the worse-than-awful support from Dell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply because we 're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems .
A lot more reliable , a lot less expensive , a lot easier to manage.No flame to Dell or Microsoft intended but their tandem has been biting the company in the behind for quite a while whether it be annoyingly small issues ( roaming profiles not syncing correctly ) or larger issues like virus outbreaks ( even with full commercial anti-virus software ) , data loss when using SMB and the worse-than-awful support from Dell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply because we're switching the entire fleet of computers to Mac systems.
A lot more reliable, a lot less expensive, a lot easier to manage.No flame to Dell or Microsoft intended but their tandem has been biting the company in the behind for quite a while whether it be annoyingly small issues (roaming profiles not syncing correctly) or larger issues like virus outbreaks (even with full commercial anti-virus software), data loss when using SMB and the worse-than-awful support from Dell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692177</id>
	<title>Win 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247591220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The management at my work have already decided to move to W7, i tolled it out to my 2 offices over the past 2 weeks and everyone seems happy using it, which has been the usual responce through out our 28 offices.  Yes there are still a few niggles here and there but considering we have rolled it out and not retrained anyone i think M$ are on to a winner as i haven&#226;(TM)t spent all day every day dealing with stupid questions.</p><p>Personally i wouldn't of rolled it out yet and had it in testing for a lot longer until i could prove it worked for everything we use, however the user response to it over XP has been phenomenal!  I'm not a great Microsoft supporter, in fact I&#226;(TM)m an avid supporter of underdogs like AMD, Linux ect.  Just because if there were no competition the monopoly could sell us any crap they wanted.<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The management at my work have already decided to move to W7 , i tolled it out to my 2 offices over the past 2 weeks and everyone seems happy using it , which has been the usual responce through out our 28 offices .
Yes there are still a few niggles here and there but considering we have rolled it out and not retrained anyone i think M $ are on to a winner as i haven   ( TM ) t spent all day every day dealing with stupid questions.Personally i would n't of rolled it out yet and had it in testing for a lot longer until i could prove it worked for everything we use , however the user response to it over XP has been phenomenal !
I 'm not a great Microsoft supporter , in fact I   ( TM ) m an avid supporter of underdogs like AMD , Linux ect .
Just because if there were no competition the monopoly could sell us any crap they wanted .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The management at my work have already decided to move to W7, i tolled it out to my 2 offices over the past 2 weeks and everyone seems happy using it, which has been the usual responce through out our 28 offices.
Yes there are still a few niggles here and there but considering we have rolled it out and not retrained anyone i think M$ are on to a winner as i havenâ(TM)t spent all day every day dealing with stupid questions.Personally i wouldn't of rolled it out yet and had it in testing for a lot longer until i could prove it worked for everything we use, however the user response to it over XP has been phenomenal!
I'm not a great Microsoft supporter, in fact Iâ(TM)m an avid supporter of underdogs like AMD, Linux ect.
Just because if there were no competition the monopoly could sell us any crap they wanted.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690369</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>knarf</author>
	<datestamp>1247583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.</p></div></blockquote><p>A 120 MHz Pentium I could easily host dozens of blogs or facebook accounts. There is nothing special about blogs or facebook accounts that needs all those spare CPU cycles you seem to want to throw at them. If you are planning to run a remote desktop by all means use all the CPU you can get as you will notice a difference but don't waste a good processor on a dumbed-down bulletin board system. Those used to run on 8-bit processors with cycles to spare...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.A 120 MHz Pentium I could easily host dozens of blogs or facebook accounts .
There is nothing special about blogs or facebook accounts that needs all those spare CPU cycles you seem to want to throw at them .
If you are planning to run a remote desktop by all means use all the CPU you can get as you will notice a difference but do n't waste a good processor on a dumbed-down bulletin board system .
Those used to run on 8-bit processors with cycles to spare.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.A 120 MHz Pentium I could easily host dozens of blogs or facebook accounts.
There is nothing special about blogs or facebook accounts that needs all those spare CPU cycles you seem to want to throw at them.
If you are planning to run a remote desktop by all means use all the CPU you can get as you will notice a difference but don't waste a good processor on a dumbed-down bulletin board system.
Those used to run on 8-bit processors with cycles to spare...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691633</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247589000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.</p></div><p>What about Windows 1?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.What about Windows 1 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.What about Windows 1?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692885</id>
	<title>Is that bad?</title>
	<author>Eirenarch</author>
	<datestamp>1247594160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that bad? Since when 40\% deployment rate in the first year is considered bad for any OS?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that bad ?
Since when 40 \ % deployment rate in the first year is considered bad for any OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that bad?
Since when 40\% deployment rate in the first year is considered bad for any OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689467</id>
	<title>Not until at least the first Service Pack</title>
	<author>secondhand\_Buddah</author>
	<datestamp>1247579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is pretty common in corporate IT departments policy to not even consider upgrading Windows until at least the first service pack has been released. No good IT manager will riskt the potential fallout of installing an untested OS on a large scale. Early adopters are generally the adventurous or the ignorant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is pretty common in corporate IT departments policy to not even consider upgrading Windows until at least the first service pack has been released .
No good IT manager will riskt the potential fallout of installing an untested OS on a large scale .
Early adopters are generally the adventurous or the ignorant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is pretty common in corporate IT departments policy to not even consider upgrading Windows until at least the first service pack has been released.
No good IT manager will riskt the potential fallout of installing an untested OS on a large scale.
Early adopters are generally the adventurous or the ignorant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690277</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>BOUND4DOOM</author>
	<datestamp>1247582880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not much however the user interface wasn't as drastically changed version to version. Same for office until office 2007. When we rolled out office 2007 we did do a lot of in house training, with 3000+ users you have to train, while some won't need it others will. Even though I am a computer programmer and use Vista at home I find something as simple as windows explorer in Vista to be overly cumbersome, clunky and never gives me what I want to see. Then the windows side bar, as a computer programmer I have it disabled it is useless CPU and memory wasters. However average joe user would load this up with all kinds of crap, adding network traffic, and then calling and complaining to the helpdesk that their computer was slow.

We are just now rolling out IE7, and yes there are training classes, and instructions and all kinds of other issue to work out just doing that upgrade. For example one we didn't expect was right after you restart from the install IE Opens, well we have a lot of users that for some reason it is coming up telling them that IE is not the default browser would they like to enable it. This little freaking error cause a whole office to shut down for an hour because one guy got it and announced to everyone out loud in the cube farm that this thing doesn't work there are problems and no one reboot their computers. He then called up management and started complaining, creating more of a problem himself than had he just clicked yes and went on with his life. Users are collectively stupid and a minor change to their working environment and all hell breaks loose. This is what makes IT people hesitant to change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not much however the user interface was n't as drastically changed version to version .
Same for office until office 2007 .
When we rolled out office 2007 we did do a lot of in house training , with 3000 + users you have to train , while some wo n't need it others will .
Even though I am a computer programmer and use Vista at home I find something as simple as windows explorer in Vista to be overly cumbersome , clunky and never gives me what I want to see .
Then the windows side bar , as a computer programmer I have it disabled it is useless CPU and memory wasters .
However average joe user would load this up with all kinds of crap , adding network traffic , and then calling and complaining to the helpdesk that their computer was slow .
We are just now rolling out IE7 , and yes there are training classes , and instructions and all kinds of other issue to work out just doing that upgrade .
For example one we did n't expect was right after you restart from the install IE Opens , well we have a lot of users that for some reason it is coming up telling them that IE is not the default browser would they like to enable it .
This little freaking error cause a whole office to shut down for an hour because one guy got it and announced to everyone out loud in the cube farm that this thing does n't work there are problems and no one reboot their computers .
He then called up management and started complaining , creating more of a problem himself than had he just clicked yes and went on with his life .
Users are collectively stupid and a minor change to their working environment and all hell breaks loose .
This is what makes IT people hesitant to change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not much however the user interface wasn't as drastically changed version to version.
Same for office until office 2007.
When we rolled out office 2007 we did do a lot of in house training, with 3000+ users you have to train, while some won't need it others will.
Even though I am a computer programmer and use Vista at home I find something as simple as windows explorer in Vista to be overly cumbersome, clunky and never gives me what I want to see.
Then the windows side bar, as a computer programmer I have it disabled it is useless CPU and memory wasters.
However average joe user would load this up with all kinds of crap, adding network traffic, and then calling and complaining to the helpdesk that their computer was slow.
We are just now rolling out IE7, and yes there are training classes, and instructions and all kinds of other issue to work out just doing that upgrade.
For example one we didn't expect was right after you restart from the install IE Opens, well we have a lot of users that for some reason it is coming up telling them that IE is not the default browser would they like to enable it.
This little freaking error cause a whole office to shut down for an hour because one guy got it and announced to everyone out loud in the cube farm that this thing doesn't work there are problems and no one reboot their computers.
He then called up management and started complaining, creating more of a problem himself than had he just clicked yes and went on with his life.
Users are collectively stupid and a minor change to their working environment and all hell breaks loose.
This is what makes IT people hesitant to change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691413</id>
	<title>Fool me once...</title>
	<author>zorro-z</author>
	<datestamp>1247588040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... shame on you; fool me umpteen times, shame on me.</p><p>In all seriousness, I suspect Win 7 will find its way onto desktops by attrition; as older machines are replaced, most of the replacement will come pre-loaded w/Win 7, as OEMs are 'encouraged' by MS to load it rather than XP, and IT departments decide it's better to give the newer OS a shot than to spend man-hours reimaging each new PC w/XP.</p><p>Will Win 7 run as well on old hardware as XP? Of course not, but XP didn't run on circa-1998 h/w as Win 98 did either. Combine Win 7- or even (ptooey) Vista- w/brand spanking new h/w, + its performance shortcomings will seem much less glaring.</p><p>As for linux- and I say this as a *major* linux fan, who runs it on a home server + workstation (both homebrewed)- it's sort of like the monorail: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... shame on you ; fool me umpteen times , shame on me.In all seriousness , I suspect Win 7 will find its way onto desktops by attrition ; as older machines are replaced , most of the replacement will come pre-loaded w/Win 7 , as OEMs are 'encouraged ' by MS to load it rather than XP , and IT departments decide it 's better to give the newer OS a shot than to spend man-hours reimaging each new PC w/XP.Will Win 7 run as well on old hardware as XP ?
Of course not , but XP did n't run on circa-1998 h/w as Win 98 did either .
Combine Win 7- or even ( ptooey ) Vista- w/brand spanking new h/w , + its performance shortcomings will seem much less glaring.As for linux- and I say this as a * major * linux fan , who runs it on a home server + workstation ( both homebrewed ) - it 's sort of like the monorail : it 's the desktop OS of the future ; always has been , always will be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... shame on you; fool me umpteen times, shame on me.In all seriousness, I suspect Win 7 will find its way onto desktops by attrition; as older machines are replaced, most of the replacement will come pre-loaded w/Win 7, as OEMs are 'encouraged' by MS to load it rather than XP, and IT departments decide it's better to give the newer OS a shot than to spend man-hours reimaging each new PC w/XP.Will Win 7 run as well on old hardware as XP?
Of course not, but XP didn't run on circa-1998 h/w as Win 98 did either.
Combine Win 7- or even (ptooey) Vista- w/brand spanking new h/w, + its performance shortcomings will seem much less glaring.As for linux- and I say this as a *major* linux fan, who runs it on a home server + workstation (both homebrewed)- it's sort of like the monorail: it's the desktop OS of the future; always has been, always will be.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689851</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>What does it promise that businesses need and don't have?</p></div></blockquote><p>Better security.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does it promise that businesses need and do n't have ? Better security .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does it promise that businesses need and don't have?Better security.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690343</id>
	<title>What the hell?</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1247583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a totally dogshit article.<br> <br>3/5 of IT workforce don't plan to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year? That's called <b>common sense!</b> You don't install new software in enterprise as it's buggy, unstable, and more often than not full of incompatibilities. A lot of these are fixed with the first Service Pack, which is when big business will <b>start</b> planning.<br> <br>Sweet Jesus on a bed or roses, I work in a school with around 40 computers *total* and even <b>I</b> won't upgrade until SP1 is out. Doing so before is just begging to be burned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a totally dogshit article .
3/5 of IT workforce do n't plan to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year ?
That 's called common sense !
You do n't install new software in enterprise as it 's buggy , unstable , and more often than not full of incompatibilities .
A lot of these are fixed with the first Service Pack , which is when big business will start planning .
Sweet Jesus on a bed or roses , I work in a school with around 40 computers * total * and even I wo n't upgrade until SP1 is out .
Doing so before is just begging to be burned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a totally dogshit article.
3/5 of IT workforce don't plan to deploy Windows 7 by the end of next year?
That's called common sense!
You don't install new software in enterprise as it's buggy, unstable, and more often than not full of incompatibilities.
A lot of these are fixed with the first Service Pack, which is when big business will start planning.
Sweet Jesus on a bed or roses, I work in a school with around 40 computers *total* and even I won't upgrade until SP1 is out.
Doing so before is just begging to be burned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</id>
	<title>I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's got to be tough. You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave. But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.</p><p>In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's got to be tough .
You ca n't kill off XP like you want to , because people really really might leave .
But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you 've spent all that money on.In the long run , they 'll switch .
Until everything becomes a webapp , the ecosystem almost demands it .
Here 's hoping people realize webapps are where it 's at , for most things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's got to be tough.
You can't kill off XP like you want to, because people really really might leave.
But it looks foolish to support that morass of code in spite of the NEW morass you've spent all that money on.In the long run, they'll switch.
Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it.
Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133</id>
	<title>SP2 Syndrome</title>
	<author>jo42</author>
	<datestamp>1247577900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT grunts know not to deploy a Microsoft by-product until at least Service Pack 2 comes out -- somehow I don't see Windows 7 SP2 being out by the end of next year. Not to mention the real world concerns of budgets, hardware upgrade cycles, training, etc. In other words, no real surprise here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT grunts know not to deploy a Microsoft by-product until at least Service Pack 2 comes out -- somehow I do n't see Windows 7 SP2 being out by the end of next year .
Not to mention the real world concerns of budgets , hardware upgrade cycles , training , etc .
In other words , no real surprise here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT grunts know not to deploy a Microsoft by-product until at least Service Pack 2 comes out -- somehow I don't see Windows 7 SP2 being out by the end of next year.
Not to mention the real world concerns of budgets, hardware upgrade cycles, training, etc.
In other words, no real surprise here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690863</id>
	<title>For nerds here, sad to see the big picture fails..</title>
	<author>HerculesMO</author>
	<datestamp>1247585520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 'big picture' is an enterprise benefit, not just "what is the feature I need from Windows 7?"</p><p>That's plain and simple, idiocy. If you don't understand the ecosystem around Windows that's fine and dandy, and I deploy *nix systems regularly but also understand the Windows ecosystem enough to know that in the desktop realm there are distinct benefits. Vista has the same general benefits as 7, but 7 is cleaner and faster, so I'll lump 7 in with Vista for now.</p><p>There are a LOT of advantages that may not benefit you, but do give good ROI. Standard imaging format with driver injections, so we can have a 'standard' image is one. Group policy that lets us lock down more stuff and change more settings for applications and the like. Better support for our network stack, because believe it or not, Windows XP actually is not great at communicating with Cisco Switches with spanning tree protocol enabled. Especially if they are Dells (yuck). Windows 7 solves that too.</p><p>We have other benefits too, like what we can build AROUND the Windows 7 environment, things we can do in Sharepoint, or within Office itself, or deploying software, etc etc.</p><p>The simple fact that you are waiting for the 'one killer feature' that will make you switch from XP, really shows how big haters you are -- I'm glad there's a lot of competition because Microsoft has stepped up the game with 7 and with other applications in its ensemble, and yet in the Slashdot crowd, they keep getting shit for it. Change the UI for better utility in Office? Get screamed at. Keep the UI in Windows the same? Get yelled at.</p><p>There's just no pleasing haters, and there's certainly no pleasing haters that don't know what the fuck they are talking about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 'big picture ' is an enterprise benefit , not just " what is the feature I need from Windows 7 ?
" That 's plain and simple , idiocy .
If you do n't understand the ecosystem around Windows that 's fine and dandy , and I deploy * nix systems regularly but also understand the Windows ecosystem enough to know that in the desktop realm there are distinct benefits .
Vista has the same general benefits as 7 , but 7 is cleaner and faster , so I 'll lump 7 in with Vista for now.There are a LOT of advantages that may not benefit you , but do give good ROI .
Standard imaging format with driver injections , so we can have a 'standard ' image is one .
Group policy that lets us lock down more stuff and change more settings for applications and the like .
Better support for our network stack , because believe it or not , Windows XP actually is not great at communicating with Cisco Switches with spanning tree protocol enabled .
Especially if they are Dells ( yuck ) .
Windows 7 solves that too.We have other benefits too , like what we can build AROUND the Windows 7 environment , things we can do in Sharepoint , or within Office itself , or deploying software , etc etc.The simple fact that you are waiting for the 'one killer feature ' that will make you switch from XP , really shows how big haters you are -- I 'm glad there 's a lot of competition because Microsoft has stepped up the game with 7 and with other applications in its ensemble , and yet in the Slashdot crowd , they keep getting shit for it .
Change the UI for better utility in Office ?
Get screamed at .
Keep the UI in Windows the same ?
Get yelled at.There 's just no pleasing haters , and there 's certainly no pleasing haters that do n't know what the fuck they are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 'big picture' is an enterprise benefit, not just "what is the feature I need from Windows 7?
"That's plain and simple, idiocy.
If you don't understand the ecosystem around Windows that's fine and dandy, and I deploy *nix systems regularly but also understand the Windows ecosystem enough to know that in the desktop realm there are distinct benefits.
Vista has the same general benefits as 7, but 7 is cleaner and faster, so I'll lump 7 in with Vista for now.There are a LOT of advantages that may not benefit you, but do give good ROI.
Standard imaging format with driver injections, so we can have a 'standard' image is one.
Group policy that lets us lock down more stuff and change more settings for applications and the like.
Better support for our network stack, because believe it or not, Windows XP actually is not great at communicating with Cisco Switches with spanning tree protocol enabled.
Especially if they are Dells (yuck).
Windows 7 solves that too.We have other benefits too, like what we can build AROUND the Windows 7 environment, things we can do in Sharepoint, or within Office itself, or deploying software, etc etc.The simple fact that you are waiting for the 'one killer feature' that will make you switch from XP, really shows how big haters you are -- I'm glad there's a lot of competition because Microsoft has stepped up the game with 7 and with other applications in its ensemble, and yet in the Slashdot crowd, they keep getting shit for it.
Change the UI for better utility in Office?
Get screamed at.
Keep the UI in Windows the same?
Get yelled at.There's just no pleasing haters, and there's certainly no pleasing haters that don't know what the fuck they are talking about.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690523</id>
	<title>Re:I'll deploy Win7</title>
	<author>numbski</author>
	<datestamp>1247583960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you say so.  I'm at a military manufacturing facility, and there are no plans to move away from XP ever.  In fact we're more likely to move onto Linux than go to Windows Vista or Windows 7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you say so .
I 'm at a military manufacturing facility , and there are no plans to move away from XP ever .
In fact we 're more likely to move onto Linux than go to Windows Vista or Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you say so.
I'm at a military manufacturing facility, and there are no plans to move away from XP ever.
In fact we're more likely to move onto Linux than go to Windows Vista or Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157</id>
	<title>Still using IE6</title>
	<author>Rik Sweeney</author>
	<datestamp>1247578020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We still have IE6 installed by default at work. The reason we haven't upgraded is because it'd break some of the applications and they don't want the headache of having to retest the application (that's the excuse anyway), so we're stuck with it.</p><p>I expect we won't be moving to Windows 7 any time soon either, XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We still have IE6 installed by default at work .
The reason we have n't upgraded is because it 'd break some of the applications and they do n't want the headache of having to retest the application ( that 's the excuse anyway ) , so we 're stuck with it.I expect we wo n't be moving to Windows 7 any time soon either , XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade , but they 'd have to re-train everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We still have IE6 installed by default at work.
The reason we haven't upgraded is because it'd break some of the applications and they don't want the headache of having to retest the application (that's the excuse anyway), so we're stuck with it.I expect we won't be moving to Windows 7 any time soon either, XP works fine and not only would they have to spend money on the upgrade, but they'd have to re-train everyone.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689951</id>
	<title>99.9\% of businesses.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247581500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In other news, 99.9\% of businesses have no plans to install Linux clients.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , 99.9 \ % of businesses have no plans to install Linux clients .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news, 99.9\% of businesses have no plans to install Linux clients.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690069</id>
	<title>Re:Still using IE6</title>
	<author>jitterman</author>
	<datestamp>1247581980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>For most companies, there probably won't be formal training, but there will be a <strong>lot</strong> of time spent by help desks/desktop techs walking individuals through tasks, usually more than once per person. At least that's my experience after 15 years in the industry. A major upgrade (and from the viewpoint of an "I don't know computers I just use them to do my job" employee, this would be major) is much more expensive than the initial purchase price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For most companies , there probably wo n't be formal training , but there will be a lot of time spent by help desks/desktop techs walking individuals through tasks , usually more than once per person .
At least that 's my experience after 15 years in the industry .
A major upgrade ( and from the viewpoint of an " I do n't know computers I just use them to do my job " employee , this would be major ) is much more expensive than the initial purchase price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For most companies, there probably won't be formal training, but there will be a lot of time spent by help desks/desktop techs walking individuals through tasks, usually more than once per person.
At least that's my experience after 15 years in the industry.
A major upgrade (and from the viewpoint of an "I don't know computers I just use them to do my job" employee, this would be major) is much more expensive than the initial purchase price.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700093</id>
	<title>Re:My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1247592540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh yeah, that's really cool. Sorry but you can't get a profile larger than 100MB, yeah we have multi-terabyte systems but you can't use them conveniently. I have one user that currently has a home directory of 1.2TB on her Mac and it does it without complaining, the user doesn't even notice it's on the network.</p><p>As far as the admin point, some software doesn't run without being an admin. Most non-mainstream software will require your user to be an admin. Most if not all research software will require your user to be an admin. For some or another reason, elevating privileges was not something that has been engrained into the operating system (most Unix-based software can elevate right from within the program when you need the functionality) but rather something that has been tacked on later and it's an all-or-nothing deal so you need it before starting a program and it's not trivial to do so either (if it works at all)</p><p>Mac's have something like Active Directory, it's called Open Directory (based on OpenLDAP) and it can do the same stuff AD does. It even integrates with AD if you really need it to augment AD.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah , that 's really cool .
Sorry but you ca n't get a profile larger than 100MB , yeah we have multi-terabyte systems but you ca n't use them conveniently .
I have one user that currently has a home directory of 1.2TB on her Mac and it does it without complaining , the user does n't even notice it 's on the network.As far as the admin point , some software does n't run without being an admin .
Most non-mainstream software will require your user to be an admin .
Most if not all research software will require your user to be an admin .
For some or another reason , elevating privileges was not something that has been engrained into the operating system ( most Unix-based software can elevate right from within the program when you need the functionality ) but rather something that has been tacked on later and it 's an all-or-nothing deal so you need it before starting a program and it 's not trivial to do so either ( if it works at all ) Mac 's have something like Active Directory , it 's called Open Directory ( based on OpenLDAP ) and it can do the same stuff AD does .
It even integrates with AD if you really need it to augment AD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah, that's really cool.
Sorry but you can't get a profile larger than 100MB, yeah we have multi-terabyte systems but you can't use them conveniently.
I have one user that currently has a home directory of 1.2TB on her Mac and it does it without complaining, the user doesn't even notice it's on the network.As far as the admin point, some software doesn't run without being an admin.
Most non-mainstream software will require your user to be an admin.
Most if not all research software will require your user to be an admin.
For some or another reason, elevating privileges was not something that has been engrained into the operating system (most Unix-based software can elevate right from within the program when you need the functionality) but rather something that has been tacked on later and it's an all-or-nothing deal so you need it before starting a program and it's not trivial to do so either (if it works at all)Mac's have something like Active Directory, it's called Open Directory (based on OpenLDAP) and it can do the same stuff AD does.
It even integrates with AD if you really need it to augment AD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690339</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693139</id>
	<title>Re:My company won't be buying Windows 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247595120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gush... you've made me laugh. What's funny is that you sound like you actually believe that replacing your old systems would magically solve al of your problems. Do you believe in Santa, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gush... you 've made me laugh .
What 's funny is that you sound like you actually believe that replacing your old systems would magically solve al of your problems .
Do you believe in Santa , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gush... you've made me laugh.
What's funny is that you sound like you actually believe that replacing your old systems would magically solve al of your problems.
Do you believe in Santa, too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689971</id>
	<title>Re:I almost pity Microsoft.</title>
	<author>JerryQ</author>
	<datestamp>1247581560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Webapp vs cloudapp

They are <b>not</b> the same.  I think everything possible will go web technology app, the question is whether the server is in your business or google/ms/amazon/?? host it, which is a decision for each business.  Maintaining desktops is an expensive business.  Everything accessible through a browser is a very enticing proposition.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Webapp vs cloudapp They are not the same .
I think everything possible will go web technology app , the question is whether the server is in your business or google/ms/amazon/ ? ?
host it , which is a decision for each business .
Maintaining desktops is an expensive business .
Everything accessible through a browser is a very enticing proposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Webapp vs cloudapp

They are not the same.
I think everything possible will go web technology app, the question is whether the server is in your business or google/ms/amazon/??
host it, which is a decision for each business.
Maintaining desktops is an expensive business.
Everything accessible through a browser is a very enticing proposition.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691101</id>
	<title>Apparently, XP is that good.</title>
	<author>Anonymatt</author>
	<datestamp>1247586540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, it's not that good, but isn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , it 's not that good , but is n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, it's not that good, but isn't it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690191</id>
	<title>Not even released yet..</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1247582520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many companies will deploy Windows 7 in maybe 1 or 2 years when it had some prime time and the strength/weaknesses are explored, fixed or can be coped with.<br><br>Not many sane IT people will deploy it immediately after the first release, but they wait until the test bunnies (OEM consumers) had their experiences and the most severe bugs are fixed.<br><br>Until then they will carefully poke it with a stick, evaluate deployment strategies, test with existing company applications for compatibility and decide later on.<br><br>Some time next year or the year after that the migration process should get some more traction because of the EOL for XP and newer hardware compatibility issues as they get a bigger hassle with time.. but come on, we all knew that already.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many companies will deploy Windows 7 in maybe 1 or 2 years when it had some prime time and the strength/weaknesses are explored , fixed or can be coped with.Not many sane IT people will deploy it immediately after the first release , but they wait until the test bunnies ( OEM consumers ) had their experiences and the most severe bugs are fixed.Until then they will carefully poke it with a stick , evaluate deployment strategies , test with existing company applications for compatibility and decide later on.Some time next year or the year after that the migration process should get some more traction because of the EOL for XP and newer hardware compatibility issues as they get a bigger hassle with time.. but come on , we all knew that already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many companies will deploy Windows 7 in maybe 1 or 2 years when it had some prime time and the strength/weaknesses are explored, fixed or can be coped with.Not many sane IT people will deploy it immediately after the first release, but they wait until the test bunnies (OEM consumers) had their experiences and the most severe bugs are fixed.Until then they will carefully poke it with a stick, evaluate deployment strategies, test with existing company applications for compatibility and decide later on.Some time next year or the year after that the migration process should get some more traction because of the EOL for XP and newer hardware compatibility issues as they get a bigger hassle with time.. but come on, we all knew that already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691707</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1247589300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The capital P perplexes me. Is it possible to typo a correct capitalization? If it's not a typo, what does it mean? is "Microsoft Promised" a proper noun? But then how would the rest of the sentence work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The capital P perplexes me .
Is it possible to typo a correct capitalization ?
If it 's not a typo , what does it mean ?
is " Microsoft Promised " a proper noun ?
But then how would the rest of the sentence work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The capital P perplexes me.
Is it possible to typo a correct capitalization?
If it's not a typo, what does it mean?
is "Microsoft Promised" a proper noun?
But then how would the rest of the sentence work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691869</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>guppysap13</author>
	<datestamp>1247589900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds kind of like what Opera is trying to do with their new 'Unite' service.

It's just it doesn't work yet (granted, still alpha/beta).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds kind of like what Opera is trying to do with their new 'Unite ' service .
It 's just it does n't work yet ( granted , still alpha/beta ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds kind of like what Opera is trying to do with their new 'Unite' service.
It's just it doesn't work yet (granted, still alpha/beta).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</id>
	<title>oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1247578860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In the long run, they'll switch. Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it. Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.</i></p><p>It's interesting, in that, so many people of the current generation see webapps and centralized computing as the new best thing.</p><p>See, some of us old people got into the PC revolution when we were kids because we were rebelling against centralized computing.  We hated the account quotas and slowness of shared system resources in college, the straightjackets around information, and we wanted to smash all of that.  We saw that giving people power tools like spreadsheets and desktop databases empowered them over the static mainframe systems of old, that a computer was something that you owned, was, well, a personal thing.</p><p>Quite frankly, if it wasn't for ISPs being such a PITA about bandwidth for uploads and hosting, and if, honestly, there was more adoption of IPv6 so that everyone could have their own address, we would see a lot more desktop to the internet hosting.  A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.  Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long run , they 'll switch .
Until everything becomes a webapp , the ecosystem almost demands it .
Here 's hoping people realize webapps are where it 's at , for most things.It 's interesting , in that , so many people of the current generation see webapps and centralized computing as the new best thing.See , some of us old people got into the PC revolution when we were kids because we were rebelling against centralized computing .
We hated the account quotas and slowness of shared system resources in college , the straightjackets around information , and we wanted to smash all of that .
We saw that giving people power tools like spreadsheets and desktop databases empowered them over the static mainframe systems of old , that a computer was something that you owned , was , well , a personal thing.Quite frankly , if it was n't for ISPs being such a PITA about bandwidth for uploads and hosting , and if , honestly , there was more adoption of IPv6 so that everyone could have their own address , we would see a lot more desktop to the internet hosting .
A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account .
Indeed , I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does , except that you own your data , and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long run, they'll switch.
Until everything becomes a webapp, the ecosystem almost demands it.
Here's hoping people realize webapps are where it's at, for most things.It's interesting, in that, so many people of the current generation see webapps and centralized computing as the new best thing.See, some of us old people got into the PC revolution when we were kids because we were rebelling against centralized computing.
We hated the account quotas and slowness of shared system resources in college, the straightjackets around information, and we wanted to smash all of that.
We saw that giving people power tools like spreadsheets and desktop databases empowered them over the static mainframe systems of old, that a computer was something that you owned, was, well, a personal thing.Quite frankly, if it wasn't for ISPs being such a PITA about bandwidth for uploads and hosting, and if, honestly, there was more adoption of IPv6 so that everyone could have their own address, we would see a lot more desktop to the internet hosting.
A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.
Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689519</id>
	<title>fri5t 4sot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">when IDC recently do and doing what market. Therefore, bloodfarts. FrreBSD me if you'd like, Be forgotten in a Why not? It's quick</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>when IDC recently do and doing what market .
Therefore , bloodfarts .
FrreBSD me if you 'd like , Be forgotten in a Why not ?
It 's quick [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>when IDC recently do and doing what market.
Therefore, bloodfarts.
FrreBSD me if you'd like, Be forgotten in a Why not?
It's quick [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689495</id>
	<title>makes sense to me</title>
	<author>gEvil (beta)</author>
	<datestamp>1247579460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hell, I wouldn't be working on plans to deploy something that <i>hasn't even been released</i> yet either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hell , I would n't be working on plans to deploy something that has n't even been released yet either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hell, I wouldn't be working on plans to deploy something that hasn't even been released yet either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28695993</id>
	<title>Re:I wouldnt make plans to deploy it either</title>
	<author>home-electro.com</author>
	<datestamp>1247564700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.</p></div><p>Did you mean "I am still waiting for the promised Microsoft ME?" It was delivered years ago, and you don't want it, believe me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.Did you mean " I am still waiting for the promised Microsoft ME ?
" It was delivered years ago , and you do n't want it , believe me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am still waiting for what Microsoft Promised me for Windows 95.Did you mean "I am still waiting for the promised Microsoft ME?
" It was delivered years ago, and you don't want it, believe me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691307</id>
	<title>Re: Me too, and I tried...</title>
	<author>donotlizard</author>
	<datestamp>1247587560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My company actually skipped over XP and went from 2000 to Vista x32, which sucks balls on our D820 laptops. It sucked so bad I eventually spent $2500 on my own Thinkpad, which rocks Vista x64.

We'll likely skip Windows 7 completely, which is just as well because it doesn't seem business friendly at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company actually skipped over XP and went from 2000 to Vista x32 , which sucks balls on our D820 laptops .
It sucked so bad I eventually spent $ 2500 on my own Thinkpad , which rocks Vista x64 .
We 'll likely skip Windows 7 completely , which is just as well because it does n't seem business friendly at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company actually skipped over XP and went from 2000 to Vista x32, which sucks balls on our D820 laptops.
It sucked so bad I eventually spent $2500 on my own Thinkpad, which rocks Vista x64.
We'll likely skip Windows 7 completely, which is just as well because it doesn't seem business friendly at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689449</id>
	<title>Re:So in 3 months</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247579340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>t's gone from 83\% that won't to 59.3\%.</p><p>Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.</p></div><p>We get stories like this every time MS releases a new OS. There are the occasional flops like Windows ME and Vista that don't see widespread enterprise deployment  but despite the universal predictions of doom you get each time most of them actually do end up being widely used in businesses. Examples include: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, I remember all sorts of columnists, bloggers and other speculators crawling out of the woodwork and predicting businesses wouldn't use them. Particularly Windows 2000 and Windows XP who turned out to be widely used regardless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>t 's gone from 83 \ % that wo n't to 59.3 \ % .Based on that , if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.We get stories like this every time MS releases a new OS .
There are the occasional flops like Windows ME and Vista that do n't see widespread enterprise deployment but despite the universal predictions of doom you get each time most of them actually do end up being widely used in businesses .
Examples include : Windows 95 , Windows 98 , Windows 2000 and Windows XP , I remember all sorts of columnists , bloggers and other speculators crawling out of the woodwork and predicting businesses would n't use them .
Particularly Windows 2000 and Windows XP who turned out to be widely used regardless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>t's gone from 83\% that won't to 59.3\%.Based on that, if MS wait nine months there will be people buying two copies.We get stories like this every time MS releases a new OS.
There are the occasional flops like Windows ME and Vista that don't see widespread enterprise deployment  but despite the universal predictions of doom you get each time most of them actually do end up being widely used in businesses.
Examples include: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000 and Windows XP, I remember all sorts of columnists, bloggers and other speculators crawling out of the woodwork and predicting businesses wouldn't use them.
Particularly Windows 2000 and Windows XP who turned out to be widely used regardless.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690743</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.  Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.</i></p></div><p>I think thats what Opera 10 will implement as Opera Unite http://unite.opera.com/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account .
Indeed , I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does , except that you own your data , and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.I think thats what Opera 10 will implement as Opera Unite http : //unite.opera.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A quadcore PC could easily host a blog or a facebook account.
Indeed, I would be the next killer application would be a desktop app that lets you do what facebook does, except that you own your data, and the core web service is really only a directory to enable peer to peer communications.I think thats what Opera 10 will implement as Opera Unite http://unite.opera.com/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691295</id>
	<title>Re:no surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sure, it's a bit more secure, but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.</i></p><p>That is the weak part of the post, revealing its author as troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , it 's a bit more secure , but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.That is the weak part of the post , revealing its author as troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, it's a bit more secure, but any IT dept has cobbled something together and locked down XP enough for it to work reasonably well.That is the weak part of the post, revealing its author as troll.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700611</id>
	<title>Re:oh here we go with mainframe vs pc again..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247598780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>agreed amigo! we're the only species that is able to pass on knowledge to our offsprings yet there will always be these smart ass kids who'd think they know better and try to reinvent the wheel. what a waste of the lessons of a lifetime i suppose, but i guess that's why we say history repeats itself. if only time stood still in our prime, we'd smack 'em kids everytime they start thinking a-crazy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed amigo !
we 're the only species that is able to pass on knowledge to our offsprings yet there will always be these smart ass kids who 'd think they know better and try to reinvent the wheel .
what a waste of the lessons of a lifetime i suppose , but i guess that 's why we say history repeats itself .
if only time stood still in our prime , we 'd smack 'em kids everytime they start thinking a-crazy ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed amigo!
we're the only species that is able to pass on knowledge to our offsprings yet there will always be these smart ass kids who'd think they know better and try to reinvent the wheel.
what a waste of the lessons of a lifetime i suppose, but i guess that's why we say history repeats itself.
if only time stood still in our prime, we'd smack 'em kids everytime they start thinking a-crazy ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690405</id>
	<title>Re:Talk about a misleading title</title>
	<author>nm42</author>
	<datestamp>1247583420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly! To me, the more interesting point is that over 40\% already DO have plans to deploy Windows 7, before the RTM is even available.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
To me , the more interesting point is that over 40 \ % already DO have plans to deploy Windows 7 , before the RTM is even available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
To me, the more interesting point is that over 40\% already DO have plans to deploy Windows 7, before the RTM is even available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689591
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689267
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692755
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28694403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690359
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691869
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28696023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692555
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28696613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28695993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692545
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690497
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690523
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28697233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689851
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693237
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28711569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28698945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28697677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690221
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28711611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689589
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689449
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689869
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28695985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690041
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690831
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690135
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692991
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689873
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689649
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691707
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690339
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_13_2359208_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690069
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690281
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28696613
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689715
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689117
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690979
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689347
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700531
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691869
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690743
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692539
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691493
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691139
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691351
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690025
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689549
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689709
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689591
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689449
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28698945
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689421
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689409
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689869
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692139
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28700093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28697677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693835
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28694489
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28695985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689469
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690411
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28696023
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692555
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690497
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689103
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689589
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689373
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689141
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28693237
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28711569
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689267
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690041
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28711611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28694403
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28695993
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689385
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28697233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691077
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_13_2359208.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690831
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28689273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690359
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28690523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28692353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_13_2359208.28691147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
