<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_15_2244200</id>
	<title>Windows 7 Clean Install Only In Europe</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1247673960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>jbeale53 writes <i>"It seems that to install Windows 7 in Europe, you'll have to <a href="http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/microsoft-new-vista-pcs-sold-in-eu-can-t-upgrade-to-windows-7-615757">wipe the system and start over</a>.  There will be no ability to upgrade. From the article, 'The unfortunate side effect has been caused by Microsoft's decision to avoid any further EU censure on Windows 7 by removing Internet Explorer 8 from the OS. Because Internet Explorer is so deeply integrated within Vista, it's not currently possible to perform an upgrade that removes IE.' Why would Microsoft cripple it this way?  Just to try and point fingers at the European Union?  Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jbeale53 writes " It seems that to install Windows 7 in Europe , you 'll have to wipe the system and start over .
There will be no ability to upgrade .
From the article , 'The unfortunate side effect has been caused by Microsoft 's decision to avoid any further EU censure on Windows 7 by removing Internet Explorer 8 from the OS .
Because Internet Explorer is so deeply integrated within Vista , it 's not currently possible to perform an upgrade that removes IE .
' Why would Microsoft cripple it this way ?
Just to try and point fingers at the European Union ?
Because the EU did n't tell them to remove IE , they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jbeale53 writes "It seems that to install Windows 7 in Europe, you'll have to wipe the system and start over.
There will be no ability to upgrade.
From the article, 'The unfortunate side effect has been caused by Microsoft's decision to avoid any further EU censure on Windows 7 by removing Internet Explorer 8 from the OS.
Because Internet Explorer is so deeply integrated within Vista, it's not currently possible to perform an upgrade that removes IE.
' Why would Microsoft cripple it this way?
Just to try and point fingers at the European Union?
Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723717</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Cacadril</author>
	<datestamp>1247743200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vista has a command-line ftp client. You can download the Firefox installer with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista has a command-line ftp client .
You can download the Firefox installer with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista has a command-line ftp client.
You can download the Firefox installer with it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714171</id>
	<title>Re:Removing IE</title>
	<author>ska,id</author>
	<datestamp>1247740140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess that most people know that there is no technical problem to hide IE in Windows, as MS does with Outlook, MSN Explorer and WinMessenger as well.

</p><p>In the eon of modems, there had been a phone number (toll-free if I remember correctly), one could download lots of settings for various internet providers from. MS could setup such thing easily today. Remember, is the http-stuff cut off Windows, too? No more automatic Windows-Updates?? The render machine is still there, too.

</p><p>But I were MS and would battle with the EU commission again and again, I would probably do the same, in order to have the EU residents get angry over the EU this time and hate themselves for cheering in times ago, the EU sued me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess that most people know that there is no technical problem to hide IE in Windows , as MS does with Outlook , MSN Explorer and WinMessenger as well .
In the eon of modems , there had been a phone number ( toll-free if I remember correctly ) , one could download lots of settings for various internet providers from .
MS could setup such thing easily today .
Remember , is the http-stuff cut off Windows , too ?
No more automatic Windows-Updates ? ?
The render machine is still there , too .
But I were MS and would battle with the EU commission again and again , I would probably do the same , in order to have the EU residents get angry over the EU this time and hate themselves for cheering in times ago , the EU sued me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess that most people know that there is no technical problem to hide IE in Windows, as MS does with Outlook, MSN Explorer and WinMessenger as well.
In the eon of modems, there had been a phone number (toll-free if I remember correctly), one could download lots of settings for various internet providers from.
MS could setup such thing easily today.
Remember, is the http-stuff cut off Windows, too?
No more automatic Windows-Updates??
The render machine is still there, too.
But I were MS and would battle with the EU commission again and again, I would probably do the same, in order to have the EU residents get angry over the EU this time and hate themselves for cheering in times ago, the EU sued me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715787</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at the subject</title>
	<author>east coast</author>
	<datestamp>1247755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would be wondering if this were a trend in software in general? I recall recently people mentioning that Euro versions of Mathmatica were also at a higher price than the US versions. Is this the norm in the EU?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would be wondering if this were a trend in software in general ?
I recall recently people mentioning that Euro versions of Mathmatica were also at a higher price than the US versions .
Is this the norm in the EU ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would be wondering if this were a trend in software in general?
I recall recently people mentioning that Euro versions of Mathmatica were also at a higher price than the US versions.
Is this the norm in the EU?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714741</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use the standard ftp-client and your favorite ftp-mirror. There was an internet before the web<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use the standard ftp-client and your favorite ftp-mirror .
There was an internet before the web ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use the standard ftp-client and your favorite ftp-mirror.
There was an internet before the web ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because when Microsoft includes a product on its Monopolistic OS, they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market.  When Apple does it, it's business as usual.  Different rules apply to Monopolies.  Thems the breaks kiddo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because when Microsoft includes a product on its Monopolistic OS , they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market .
When Apple does it , it 's business as usual .
Different rules apply to Monopolies .
Thems the breaks kiddo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because when Microsoft includes a product on its Monopolistic OS, they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market.
When Apple does it, it's business as usual.
Different rules apply to Monopolies.
Thems the breaks kiddo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712497</id>
	<title>I can understand that.</title>
	<author>tokyoahead</author>
	<datestamp>1247679300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since neither MS nor most of the companies who write software for Windows know how to write a program that can be uninstalled 100\% after use, you cannot simply remove IE.</p><p>Additionally, a lot of business software is relying on IE to work. It simply does not care if FF would run with it, but it simply only executes IE for in-window browsing etc.</p><p>If you upgrade from Vista to 7 and loose IE, you will be stuck with more non-working programs than you want to handle - or better - than MS wants to handle.</p><p>If something breaks after an upgrade with a forced removal of IE, the users will scream "The new Windows broke my machine!". The same thing they screamed when Vista came out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since neither MS nor most of the companies who write software for Windows know how to write a program that can be uninstalled 100 \ % after use , you can not simply remove IE.Additionally , a lot of business software is relying on IE to work .
It simply does not care if FF would run with it , but it simply only executes IE for in-window browsing etc.If you upgrade from Vista to 7 and loose IE , you will be stuck with more non-working programs than you want to handle - or better - than MS wants to handle.If something breaks after an upgrade with a forced removal of IE , the users will scream " The new Windows broke my machine ! " .
The same thing they screamed when Vista came out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since neither MS nor most of the companies who write software for Windows know how to write a program that can be uninstalled 100\% after use, you cannot simply remove IE.Additionally, a lot of business software is relying on IE to work.
It simply does not care if FF would run with it, but it simply only executes IE for in-window browsing etc.If you upgrade from Vista to 7 and loose IE, you will be stuck with more non-working programs than you want to handle - or better - than MS wants to handle.If something breaks after an upgrade with a forced removal of IE, the users will scream "The new Windows broke my machine!".
The same thing they screamed when Vista came out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717325</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247761320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Why should the EU get to decide what MS puts in its OS?</p> </div><p>
Because we live in a society governed by laws.  Some of those laws regulate various markets to attempt to ensure that they behave roughly like a free market.  If a company makes one product and controls most of the market then it's very easy for them to tie another product to their first one and gain control of another market.  Imagine, for example, if Sony controlled 90\% of the TV market in the early '80s.  They could have designed their TVs in such a way that they would only work with Betamax players and not with VHS.  People with Sony TVs would have bought Betamax instead of VHS and then Sony would have ended up with majority market share in the video recorder market too.</p><p>
Antitrust law - in the US and EU - specifically forbids this behaviour.  You may not use a dominant position (note: this does not have to be a monopoly) in one market to gain a dominant position in another.  If you are shipping your OS with 90\% of computers then any software you bundle with your OS gains a massive commercial advantage over any competitors and so comes under scrutiny.  </p><p>
This is not some special Anti-Microsoft law, it applies in all markets. Without this kind of regulation, the first company that gains a dominant market position in a large market will gradually expand until they Omni Consumer Products, at which point you have a corporate government with no public accountability (or 'libertarian utopia' as it's often referred to on Slashdot).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should the EU get to decide what MS puts in its OS ?
Because we live in a society governed by laws .
Some of those laws regulate various markets to attempt to ensure that they behave roughly like a free market .
If a company makes one product and controls most of the market then it 's very easy for them to tie another product to their first one and gain control of another market .
Imagine , for example , if Sony controlled 90 \ % of the TV market in the early '80s .
They could have designed their TVs in such a way that they would only work with Betamax players and not with VHS .
People with Sony TVs would have bought Betamax instead of VHS and then Sony would have ended up with majority market share in the video recorder market too .
Antitrust law - in the US and EU - specifically forbids this behaviour .
You may not use a dominant position ( note : this does not have to be a monopoly ) in one market to gain a dominant position in another .
If you are shipping your OS with 90 \ % of computers then any software you bundle with your OS gains a massive commercial advantage over any competitors and so comes under scrutiny .
This is not some special Anti-Microsoft law , it applies in all markets .
Without this kind of regulation , the first company that gains a dominant market position in a large market will gradually expand until they Omni Consumer Products , at which point you have a corporate government with no public accountability ( or 'libertarian utopia ' as it 's often referred to on Slashdot ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why should the EU get to decide what MS puts in its OS?
Because we live in a society governed by laws.
Some of those laws regulate various markets to attempt to ensure that they behave roughly like a free market.
If a company makes one product and controls most of the market then it's very easy for them to tie another product to their first one and gain control of another market.
Imagine, for example, if Sony controlled 90\% of the TV market in the early '80s.
They could have designed their TVs in such a way that they would only work with Betamax players and not with VHS.
People with Sony TVs would have bought Betamax instead of VHS and then Sony would have ended up with majority market share in the video recorder market too.
Antitrust law - in the US and EU - specifically forbids this behaviour.
You may not use a dominant position (note: this does not have to be a monopoly) in one market to gain a dominant position in another.
If you are shipping your OS with 90\% of computers then any software you bundle with your OS gains a massive commercial advantage over any competitors and so comes under scrutiny.
This is not some special Anti-Microsoft law, it applies in all markets.
Without this kind of regulation, the first company that gains a dominant market position in a large market will gradually expand until they Omni Consumer Products, at which point you have a corporate government with no public accountability (or 'libertarian utopia' as it's often referred to on Slashdot).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717255</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is the <b>opposite</b> of well programmed apps.</p><p>
Well programmed apps put all their data in the user directory, and their settings either in the same directory or the user profile.</p><p>
If you want to assert they shouldn't use the registry at all, and only store stuff in a directory in the user profile, so that you could copy the profile and the installation dir across, whatever. That's fine. That's what Linux does, and the registry is somewhat silly to start with. Put an ini file in their profile directory.</p><p>
But arguing that they should contain their stuff in their program directory is exactly the reason that people have to run as everything as Administrator. No thanks, we've already tried that little experiment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is the opposite of well programmed apps .
Well programmed apps put all their data in the user directory , and their settings either in the same directory or the user profile .
If you want to assert they should n't use the registry at all , and only store stuff in a directory in the user profile , so that you could copy the profile and the installation dir across , whatever .
That 's fine .
That 's what Linux does , and the registry is somewhat silly to start with .
Put an ini file in their profile directory .
But arguing that they should contain their stuff in their program directory is exactly the reason that people have to run as everything as Administrator .
No thanks , we 've already tried that little experiment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is the opposite of well programmed apps.
Well programmed apps put all their data in the user directory, and their settings either in the same directory or the user profile.
If you want to assert they shouldn't use the registry at all, and only store stuff in a directory in the user profile, so that you could copy the profile and the installation dir across, whatever.
That's fine.
That's what Linux does, and the registry is somewhat silly to start with.
Put an ini file in their profile directory.
But arguing that they should contain their stuff in their program directory is exactly the reason that people have to run as everything as Administrator.
No thanks, we've already tried that little experiment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714857</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247749140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is exactly what I've been wondering as well. Does anyone have a good answer to this? Will I need to keep Firefox installers handy on USB drives in the future?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is exactly what I 've been wondering as well .
Does anyone have a good answer to this ?
Will I need to keep Firefox installers handy on USB drives in the future ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is exactly what I've been wondering as well.
Does anyone have a good answer to this?
Will I need to keep Firefox installers handy on USB drives in the future?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435</id>
	<title>Removing IE</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1247774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Alright, here's where I'm confused:</p><p>In Windows Vista, you cannot remove IE.  You can upgrade from 7 to 8, of course, but there's no way to remove it, and things will break if you try, because it was never designed to operate without IE present, although it's certainly better than XP was in that respect.</p><p>In Windows 7, you can remove IE.  Control Panel, Programs and Features, click the link in the sidebar to "Turn Windows features on or off", uncheck Internet Explorer 8, click Yes to the warning that this might break stuff, let it reboot, wait a few extra seconds while it "configures" things, and it's gone.  The rendering engine is still there, of course, but the application is gone.</p><p>Presumably, after you have upgraded from Vista to 7, this is still true; you can still remove IE by following the above steps.</p><p>So how hard is it to just automatically add the uninstall to the upgrade process?  Make it optional:  after completing an upgrade, ask the user whether they'd like to remove IE or keep it.</p><p>And hey, if I recall correctly, they were planning to offer two versions anyway:  you could either have IE preinstalled, or not.  So, they could make the no-IE version clean-install-only, and the with-IE version could be clean-install or upgrade.</p><p>This is definitely not a technical problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Alright , here 's where I 'm confused : In Windows Vista , you can not remove IE .
You can upgrade from 7 to 8 , of course , but there 's no way to remove it , and things will break if you try , because it was never designed to operate without IE present , although it 's certainly better than XP was in that respect.In Windows 7 , you can remove IE .
Control Panel , Programs and Features , click the link in the sidebar to " Turn Windows features on or off " , uncheck Internet Explorer 8 , click Yes to the warning that this might break stuff , let it reboot , wait a few extra seconds while it " configures " things , and it 's gone .
The rendering engine is still there , of course , but the application is gone.Presumably , after you have upgraded from Vista to 7 , this is still true ; you can still remove IE by following the above steps.So how hard is it to just automatically add the uninstall to the upgrade process ?
Make it optional : after completing an upgrade , ask the user whether they 'd like to remove IE or keep it.And hey , if I recall correctly , they were planning to offer two versions anyway : you could either have IE preinstalled , or not .
So , they could make the no-IE version clean-install-only , and the with-IE version could be clean-install or upgrade.This is definitely not a technical problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alright, here's where I'm confused:In Windows Vista, you cannot remove IE.
You can upgrade from 7 to 8, of course, but there's no way to remove it, and things will break if you try, because it was never designed to operate without IE present, although it's certainly better than XP was in that respect.In Windows 7, you can remove IE.
Control Panel, Programs and Features, click the link in the sidebar to "Turn Windows features on or off", uncheck Internet Explorer 8, click Yes to the warning that this might break stuff, let it reboot, wait a few extra seconds while it "configures" things, and it's gone.
The rendering engine is still there, of course, but the application is gone.Presumably, after you have upgraded from Vista to 7, this is still true; you can still remove IE by following the above steps.So how hard is it to just automatically add the uninstall to the upgrade process?
Make it optional:  after completing an upgrade, ask the user whether they'd like to remove IE or keep it.And hey, if I recall correctly, they were planning to offer two versions anyway:  you could either have IE preinstalled, or not.
So, they could make the no-IE version clean-install-only, and the with-IE version could be clean-install or upgrade.This is definitely not a technical problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716355</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>0ld\_d0g</author>
	<datestamp>1247757600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An 'operating system' is extremely loosely defined. Depending on who the chosen expert was , the definition could be twisted to mean anything. Also if you actually read the verdict, the fact that there was bundling was the \_LEAST\_ of the concerns of the judge.</p><p>The main point what turned the decision was when it was revealed that MS spent around $100 million to develop IE and gave it away for FREE thus harming the competition and being anti-competitive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An 'operating system ' is extremely loosely defined .
Depending on who the chosen expert was , the definition could be twisted to mean anything .
Also if you actually read the verdict , the fact that there was bundling was the \ _LEAST \ _ of the concerns of the judge.The main point what turned the decision was when it was revealed that MS spent around $ 100 million to develop IE and gave it away for FREE thus harming the competition and being anti-competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An 'operating system' is extremely loosely defined.
Depending on who the chosen expert was , the definition could be twisted to mean anything.
Also if you actually read the verdict, the fact that there was bundling was the \_LEAST\_ of the concerns of the judge.The main point what turned the decision was when it was revealed that MS spent around $100 million to develop IE and gave it away for FREE thus harming the competition and being anti-competitive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712383</id>
	<title>it is probably for the best</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1247678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upgrading from one OS to another OS is always a risky thing.  The conditions and results are likely to be incalculably variable.  For businesses, this should not be a big deal.  Their data should be stored on servers, not on workstations.  Their workstations should be loaded from system software images which are deployed when major upgrades are rolled out or when a machine becomes corrupted with malware.  Simply building Windows7 images is the best way to deploy Windows7 in the EU or in the US... in the office or even at home.  Okay, at home, they should buy a new hard drive and install Windows7 then put their old drive in a USB box and import only the data.</p><p>Installing any OS clean is generally for the best and will give the OS the best opportunity to give a good impression.</p><p>On the flip side, can you imagine what a machine would be like today if a machine once running Windows NT 3.x with general applications was upgraded to every incarnation of Windows since then along with every incarnation of their applications along the way?  I'm morbidly curious to know what that would be like...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrading from one OS to another OS is always a risky thing .
The conditions and results are likely to be incalculably variable .
For businesses , this should not be a big deal .
Their data should be stored on servers , not on workstations .
Their workstations should be loaded from system software images which are deployed when major upgrades are rolled out or when a machine becomes corrupted with malware .
Simply building Windows7 images is the best way to deploy Windows7 in the EU or in the US... in the office or even at home .
Okay , at home , they should buy a new hard drive and install Windows7 then put their old drive in a USB box and import only the data.Installing any OS clean is generally for the best and will give the OS the best opportunity to give a good impression.On the flip side , can you imagine what a machine would be like today if a machine once running Windows NT 3.x with general applications was upgraded to every incarnation of Windows since then along with every incarnation of their applications along the way ?
I 'm morbidly curious to know what that would be like.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrading from one OS to another OS is always a risky thing.
The conditions and results are likely to be incalculably variable.
For businesses, this should not be a big deal.
Their data should be stored on servers, not on workstations.
Their workstations should be loaded from system software images which are deployed when major upgrades are rolled out or when a machine becomes corrupted with malware.
Simply building Windows7 images is the best way to deploy Windows7 in the EU or in the US... in the office or even at home.
Okay, at home, they should buy a new hard drive and install Windows7 then put their old drive in a USB box and import only the data.Installing any OS clean is generally for the best and will give the OS the best opportunity to give a good impression.On the flip side, can you imagine what a machine would be like today if a machine once running Windows NT 3.x with general applications was upgraded to every incarnation of Windows since then along with every incarnation of their applications along the way?
I'm morbidly curious to know what that would be like...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</id>
	<title>But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how do I go and download FireFox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how do I go and download FireFox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do I go and download FireFox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714991</id>
	<title>I wouldnt mess with Eu if i was microsoft</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this is Eu. no senate, no congress. you cant pressurize them through shitty moves like that. it is a body that issued and enforced SO many quality standards, some even despite great reaction from public or interest groups that, they made so far as to make a joke about themselves a few years ago, by putting out a fake 'thickness standards in chicken eggs' document in 1 april.</p><p>you cant buy mps or senators there either, eu is too big, too many countries in it and its very people oriented.</p><p>all this would result in would be eu issuing stricter standards for software companies (especially os producers) to adhere to, to prevent repetition of such shit in future.</p><p>whichever moron came up with the idea among microsoft execs - congrats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this is Eu .
no senate , no congress .
you cant pressurize them through shitty moves like that .
it is a body that issued and enforced SO many quality standards , some even despite great reaction from public or interest groups that , they made so far as to make a joke about themselves a few years ago , by putting out a fake 'thickness standards in chicken eggs ' document in 1 april.you cant buy mps or senators there either , eu is too big , too many countries in it and its very people oriented.all this would result in would be eu issuing stricter standards for software companies ( especially os producers ) to adhere to , to prevent repetition of such shit in future.whichever moron came up with the idea among microsoft execs - congrats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is Eu.
no senate, no congress.
you cant pressurize them through shitty moves like that.
it is a body that issued and enforced SO many quality standards, some even despite great reaction from public or interest groups that, they made so far as to make a joke about themselves a few years ago, by putting out a fake 'thickness standards in chicken eggs' document in 1 april.you cant buy mps or senators there either, eu is too big, too many countries in it and its very people oriented.all this would result in would be eu issuing stricter standards for software companies (especially os producers) to adhere to, to prevent repetition of such shit in future.whichever moron came up with the idea among microsoft execs - congrats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716035</id>
	<title>Re:The more I hear about it...</title>
	<author>cruachan</author>
	<datestamp>1247756100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fine, except the EU now contains 150\% more people than the USA, is more densly populated than the USA so making infrastructural improvements more cost effective (our mobile network is easily 10 years ahead of yours), has a total GDP of USD$16.5 trillion compared to the US's paltry USD$14 trillion with more room for growth as we modernise the old eastern block, and now we're progressively getting our joint political act together is shaping up to be one of the three major economic powerblocks of the 21st century - the others being India and China*.</p><p>Sure you'll stick around in 4th place, but no International company like Microsoft is going to want to be confined to a minority market place in the longer term.  If the EU says jump, MS will jump.</p><p>*I guess we'll probably let you stick around and fight our wars for us for the forseeable though.</p><p>'<br>'<br>'<br>'<br>OK OK, I'm pulling your string, but the facts are true and the conclusion equally valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fine , except the EU now contains 150 \ % more people than the USA , is more densly populated than the USA so making infrastructural improvements more cost effective ( our mobile network is easily 10 years ahead of yours ) , has a total GDP of USD $ 16.5 trillion compared to the US 's paltry USD $ 14 trillion with more room for growth as we modernise the old eastern block , and now we 're progressively getting our joint political act together is shaping up to be one of the three major economic powerblocks of the 21st century - the others being India and China * .Sure you 'll stick around in 4th place , but no International company like Microsoft is going to want to be confined to a minority market place in the longer term .
If the EU says jump , MS will jump .
* I guess we 'll probably let you stick around and fight our wars for us for the forseeable though .
''''OK OK , I 'm pulling your string , but the facts are true and the conclusion equally valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fine, except the EU now contains 150\% more people than the USA, is more densly populated than the USA so making infrastructural improvements more cost effective (our mobile network is easily 10 years ahead of yours), has a total GDP of USD$16.5 trillion compared to the US's paltry USD$14 trillion with more room for growth as we modernise the old eastern block, and now we're progressively getting our joint political act together is shaping up to be one of the three major economic powerblocks of the 21st century - the others being India and China*.Sure you'll stick around in 4th place, but no International company like Microsoft is going to want to be confined to a minority market place in the longer term.
If the EU says jump, MS will jump.
*I guess we'll probably let you stick around and fight our wars for us for the forseeable though.
''''OK OK, I'm pulling your string, but the facts are true and the conclusion equally valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713127</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247684880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's generally a very bad idea to piss off the people who can confiscate considerable parts of your property. The EU is a <b>larger</b> market than the US. Telling the EU to "fuck off" is the dumbest business decision a multinational corporation could possibly make.</p></div><p>If the EU can punish Microsoft because they made it difficult for Windows purchasers by (technically) following the EU's legal orders, then they are even more sideways over there than I thought.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's generally a very bad idea to piss off the people who can confiscate considerable parts of your property .
The EU is a larger market than the US .
Telling the EU to " fuck off " is the dumbest business decision a multinational corporation could possibly make.If the EU can punish Microsoft because they made it difficult for Windows purchasers by ( technically ) following the EU 's legal orders , then they are even more sideways over there than I thought .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's generally a very bad idea to piss off the people who can confiscate considerable parts of your property.
The EU is a larger market than the US.
Telling the EU to "fuck off" is the dumbest business decision a multinational corporation could possibly make.If the EU can punish Microsoft because they made it difficult for Windows purchasers by (technically) following the EU's legal orders, then they are even more sideways over there than I thought.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713351</id>
	<title>Re:If you have to do a clean install anyway...</title>
	<author>Thundarr Trollgrim</author>
	<datestamp>1247687340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have a spare couple of grand for each of us for the oh-so-glamourous style hardware? Thought not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a spare couple of grand for each of us for the oh-so-glamourous style hardware ?
Thought not : P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a spare couple of grand for each of us for the oh-so-glamourous style hardware?
Thought not :P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717095</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1247760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WIN+r, type: cmd.exe<br>In the console type: telnet mozilla.isc.org 80<br>In the telnet console type ont the following two lines:</p><p>GET<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5/win32/en/Firefox\%20Setup\%203.5.exe HTTP/1.1<br>Host: mozilla.isc.org</p><p>Now click enter again and the download should begin. Then comes the hard part to copy paste all that binary stuff into an exe file<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WIN + r , type : cmd.exeIn the console type : telnet mozilla.isc.org 80In the telnet console type ont the following two lines : GET /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5/win32/en/Firefox \ % 20Setup \ % 203.5.exe HTTP/1.1Host : mozilla.isc.orgNow click enter again and the download should begin .
Then comes the hard part to copy paste all that binary stuff into an exe file ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WIN+r, type: cmd.exeIn the console type: telnet mozilla.isc.org 80In the telnet console type ont the following two lines:GET /pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5/win32/en/Firefox\%20Setup\%203.5.exe HTTP/1.1Host: mozilla.isc.orgNow click enter again and the download should begin.
Then comes the hard part to copy paste all that binary stuff into an exe file ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715853</id>
	<title>Re:The last thing we need ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You tell her to google it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You tell her to google it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You tell her to google it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712825</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712775</id>
	<title>Re:Why must I have Windows 7?</title>
	<author>Meumeu</author>
	<datestamp>1247681580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all. Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7? Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.</p></div><p>Because you don't need to activate XP? Besides, you don't have to activate Windows 7 if you want to try it out...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all .
Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7 ?
Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.Because you do n't need to activate XP ?
Besides , you do n't have to activate Windows 7 if you want to try it out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all.
Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7?
Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.Because you don't need to activate XP?
Besides, you don't have to activate Windows 7 if you want to try it out...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718731</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247766300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it doesn't. All the EU watch dogs will do is get us embroiled in a trade war with the US that we cannot win at this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it does n't .
All the EU watch dogs will do is get us embroiled in a trade war with the US that we can not win at this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it doesn't.
All the EU watch dogs will do is get us embroiled in a trade war with the US that we cannot win at this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1247685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the smart way to do it.</p><p>Right-click on "my documents" to move it to a folder on D:</p><p>Also, well-programmed apps (World of Warcraft comes to mind) are actually self-contained: everything they need is in their own directory, so if you put them on D:, they'll run right of the bat after a reinstall. One can't help but wonder why all apps are not that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the smart way to do it.Right-click on " my documents " to move it to a folder on D : Also , well-programmed apps ( World of Warcraft comes to mind ) are actually self-contained : everything they need is in their own directory , so if you put them on D : , they 'll run right of the bat after a reinstall .
One ca n't help but wonder why all apps are not that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the smart way to do it.Right-click on "my documents" to move it to a folder on D:Also, well-programmed apps (World of Warcraft comes to mind) are actually self-contained: everything they need is in their own directory, so if you put them on D:, they'll run right of the bat after a reinstall.
One can't help but wonder why all apps are not that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713385</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1247687760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To a large degree, it's for the same reason that Safari can't be fully removed from Mac OS X.  The browser contains almost no code, and all the actual engine parts are used by hundreds of other applications, tools, etc. from both the OS vendor and third parties.  Although you can remove the browser app, you really aren't removing anything but the barest outer skin of the browser; probably a solid 99\% of it will still be there.  To a lesser degree, this is also true for Linux.  Delete Firefox, install Chrome, and I'd imagine you'll find at least a few apps that break badly (unable to display help, etc.).</p><p>I'll use Mac OS X for my examples because I'm more familiar with it.  In Mac OS X, the WebKit framework is used by Mail, Preview, etc. for rendering HTML.  This is important for several reasons:</p><ol>
<li>RAM use.  The WebKit framework is a bit over 7MB on disk.  There's exactly one copy of most of that in RAM, and the pages are shared among all the applications that link against WebKit.  The alternative would be including a separate copy of this library for each app, which would mean that each app would have its own copy of that 7 MB.  More RAM use = slower.</li><li>Security.  If every app that needed browser functionality had to include its own copy of the browser core code, each of those apps would have to be updated every time there's a security fix or other major bug fix....</li><li>Stability.  If every app that needed browser functionality had to include its own copy of the browser core code, each app would probably end up with its own slightly diverged version of the code with its own set of bugs, leading to a maintenance nightmare, reduced stability, inconsistent behavior between apps, etc.</li></ol><p>Similarly, the JavaScriptCore framework is used by other apps for running JavaScript code as an application scripting language, the PubSub framework is used by other apps for subscribing to RSS feeds, and so on.</p><p>As for why having multiple such engines is less than useful, there are three main reasons that immediately spring to mind:</p><ol>
<li>Application developers (open source notwithstanding) are generally wary about depending on having another application installed.  And the ones who aren't wary about that are the same developers who keep reinstalling that five-year-old copy of Acrobat Reader every time you install their software, so being wary is a good thing.</li><li>The various engine vendors will never be able to agree on a single, standardized API.  That means that you have to code to a particular engine.  If it isn't there, you're hosed.  See point 1.</li><li>In the worst case, you can end up with several competing HTML rendering engines, none of which work adequately as an embedded browser....</li></ol><p>In short, the reasons for including a single standard browser core as part of the OS should be both obvious and compelling even if you have no interest in actually using it as your main web browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To a large degree , it 's for the same reason that Safari ca n't be fully removed from Mac OS X. The browser contains almost no code , and all the actual engine parts are used by hundreds of other applications , tools , etc .
from both the OS vendor and third parties .
Although you can remove the browser app , you really are n't removing anything but the barest outer skin of the browser ; probably a solid 99 \ % of it will still be there .
To a lesser degree , this is also true for Linux .
Delete Firefox , install Chrome , and I 'd imagine you 'll find at least a few apps that break badly ( unable to display help , etc .
) .I 'll use Mac OS X for my examples because I 'm more familiar with it .
In Mac OS X , the WebKit framework is used by Mail , Preview , etc .
for rendering HTML .
This is important for several reasons : RAM use .
The WebKit framework is a bit over 7MB on disk .
There 's exactly one copy of most of that in RAM , and the pages are shared among all the applications that link against WebKit .
The alternative would be including a separate copy of this library for each app , which would mean that each app would have its own copy of that 7 MB .
More RAM use = slower.Security .
If every app that needed browser functionality had to include its own copy of the browser core code , each of those apps would have to be updated every time there 's a security fix or other major bug fix....Stability .
If every app that needed browser functionality had to include its own copy of the browser core code , each app would probably end up with its own slightly diverged version of the code with its own set of bugs , leading to a maintenance nightmare , reduced stability , inconsistent behavior between apps , etc.Similarly , the JavaScriptCore framework is used by other apps for running JavaScript code as an application scripting language , the PubSub framework is used by other apps for subscribing to RSS feeds , and so on.As for why having multiple such engines is less than useful , there are three main reasons that immediately spring to mind : Application developers ( open source notwithstanding ) are generally wary about depending on having another application installed .
And the ones who are n't wary about that are the same developers who keep reinstalling that five-year-old copy of Acrobat Reader every time you install their software , so being wary is a good thing.The various engine vendors will never be able to agree on a single , standardized API .
That means that you have to code to a particular engine .
If it is n't there , you 're hosed .
See point 1.In the worst case , you can end up with several competing HTML rendering engines , none of which work adequately as an embedded browser....In short , the reasons for including a single standard browser core as part of the OS should be both obvious and compelling even if you have no interest in actually using it as your main web browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To a large degree, it's for the same reason that Safari can't be fully removed from Mac OS X.  The browser contains almost no code, and all the actual engine parts are used by hundreds of other applications, tools, etc.
from both the OS vendor and third parties.
Although you can remove the browser app, you really aren't removing anything but the barest outer skin of the browser; probably a solid 99\% of it will still be there.
To a lesser degree, this is also true for Linux.
Delete Firefox, install Chrome, and I'd imagine you'll find at least a few apps that break badly (unable to display help, etc.
).I'll use Mac OS X for my examples because I'm more familiar with it.
In Mac OS X, the WebKit framework is used by Mail, Preview, etc.
for rendering HTML.
This is important for several reasons:
RAM use.
The WebKit framework is a bit over 7MB on disk.
There's exactly one copy of most of that in RAM, and the pages are shared among all the applications that link against WebKit.
The alternative would be including a separate copy of this library for each app, which would mean that each app would have its own copy of that 7 MB.
More RAM use = slower.Security.
If every app that needed browser functionality had to include its own copy of the browser core code, each of those apps would have to be updated every time there's a security fix or other major bug fix....Stability.
If every app that needed browser functionality had to include its own copy of the browser core code, each app would probably end up with its own slightly diverged version of the code with its own set of bugs, leading to a maintenance nightmare, reduced stability, inconsistent behavior between apps, etc.Similarly, the JavaScriptCore framework is used by other apps for running JavaScript code as an application scripting language, the PubSub framework is used by other apps for subscribing to RSS feeds, and so on.As for why having multiple such engines is less than useful, there are three main reasons that immediately spring to mind:
Application developers (open source notwithstanding) are generally wary about depending on having another application installed.
And the ones who aren't wary about that are the same developers who keep reinstalling that five-year-old copy of Acrobat Reader every time you install their software, so being wary is a good thing.The various engine vendors will never be able to agree on a single, standardized API.
That means that you have to code to a particular engine.
If it isn't there, you're hosed.
See point 1.In the worst case, you can end up with several competing HTML rendering engines, none of which work adequately as an embedded browser....In short, the reasons for including a single standard browser core as part of the OS should be both obvious and compelling even if you have no interest in actually using it as your main web browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712809</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717909</id>
	<title>Re:if it was me</title>
	<author>Jackdaw Rookery</author>
	<datestamp>1247763540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people's 3rd party software in my software product, I'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code."</p><p>And you'd lose the world's largest business market. Congratulations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people 's 3rd party software in my software product , I 'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code .
" And you 'd lose the world 's largest business market .
Congratulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people's 3rd party software in my software product, I'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code.
"And you'd lose the world's largest business market.
Congratulations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714631</id>
	<title>Ok, so where's the choice again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the EU 'won' and there is a version of win7 with no IE and lots of hassle.</p><p>So good job , I know this will be available, and my choice is I do not wish to use it.</p><p>I do not use IE for anything I'm a Firefox fan, but I just do not have any wish to pay for all this hassle.</p><p>Where can I exercise my right to chose to buy the regular windows 7 instead of the Windows 7 E or N packages?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the EU 'won ' and there is a version of win7 with no IE and lots of hassle.So good job , I know this will be available , and my choice is I do not wish to use it.I do not use IE for anything I 'm a Firefox fan , but I just do not have any wish to pay for all this hassle.Where can I exercise my right to chose to buy the regular windows 7 instead of the Windows 7 E or N packages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the EU 'won' and there is a version of win7 with no IE and lots of hassle.So good job , I know this will be available, and my choice is I do not wish to use it.I do not use IE for anything I'm a Firefox fan, but I just do not have any wish to pay for all this hassle.Where can I exercise my right to chose to buy the regular windows 7 instead of the Windows 7 E or N packages?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716551</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe I'm the only one thinking this morning... but what the hell are you talking about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe I 'm the only one thinking this morning... but what the hell are you talking about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe I'm the only one thinking this morning... but what the hell are you talking about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713079</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247684400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My suspicion is that Microsoft believes your "more effective remedy" will be ordered anyway, but that the details will take months to hammer out. Microsoft wants to ship Windows 7 in the meantime. In order to ship Windows 7 with the final remedy not in place, Microsoft is removing IE as a show of good will. So far this appears to have been well received by the EU (although obviously the final verdict is not in yet, so that may change). But the language Microsoft is using seems to indicate that they expect to be forced to run a browser election on install, regardless of removing IE.</p><p>This is actually reasonable, because the details of a browser election are hard to coordinate. None of it would be technically difficult, but it requires cooperation between a number of mutually hostile entities. Stuff like which browsers are on it, what order do they appear in, are they distributed with Windows or downloaded after being chosen, where are the bits stored, when do they get updated, who handles servicing, how is support handled, etc.. And while the EU can impose a remedy and say that's ok, anything Microsoft comes up with would be subject to the commission's judgement and possible rejection anyway.</p><p>Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft as a developer on Windows. But this is purely my own speculation, and as a developer I have no clue what's going on with respect to this in legal or upper management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My suspicion is that Microsoft believes your " more effective remedy " will be ordered anyway , but that the details will take months to hammer out .
Microsoft wants to ship Windows 7 in the meantime .
In order to ship Windows 7 with the final remedy not in place , Microsoft is removing IE as a show of good will .
So far this appears to have been well received by the EU ( although obviously the final verdict is not in yet , so that may change ) .
But the language Microsoft is using seems to indicate that they expect to be forced to run a browser election on install , regardless of removing IE.This is actually reasonable , because the details of a browser election are hard to coordinate .
None of it would be technically difficult , but it requires cooperation between a number of mutually hostile entities .
Stuff like which browsers are on it , what order do they appear in , are they distributed with Windows or downloaded after being chosen , where are the bits stored , when do they get updated , who handles servicing , how is support handled , etc.. And while the EU can impose a remedy and say that 's ok , anything Microsoft comes up with would be subject to the commission 's judgement and possible rejection anyway.Disclaimer : I work for Microsoft as a developer on Windows .
But this is purely my own speculation , and as a developer I have no clue what 's going on with respect to this in legal or upper management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My suspicion is that Microsoft believes your "more effective remedy" will be ordered anyway, but that the details will take months to hammer out.
Microsoft wants to ship Windows 7 in the meantime.
In order to ship Windows 7 with the final remedy not in place, Microsoft is removing IE as a show of good will.
So far this appears to have been well received by the EU (although obviously the final verdict is not in yet, so that may change).
But the language Microsoft is using seems to indicate that they expect to be forced to run a browser election on install, regardless of removing IE.This is actually reasonable, because the details of a browser election are hard to coordinate.
None of it would be technically difficult, but it requires cooperation between a number of mutually hostile entities.
Stuff like which browsers are on it, what order do they appear in, are they distributed with Windows or downloaded after being chosen, where are the bits stored, when do they get updated, who handles servicing, how is support handled, etc.. And while the EU can impose a remedy and say that's ok, anything Microsoft comes up with would be subject to the commission's judgement and possible rejection anyway.Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft as a developer on Windows.
But this is purely my own speculation, and as a developer I have no clue what's going on with respect to this in legal or upper management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718833</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>RoFLKOPTr</author>
	<datestamp>1247766720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, in reply to just about every commenter that replied to me...<p>Basically, by your definition of "antitrust violation", you're basically telling me that Microsoft is not allowed to bundle any software in their OS because that would be an abuse of their monopoly. At least... any Microsoft software. So that means Notepad, Wordpad, Paint, Explorer (the windows shell; we've already covered IE), Remote Desktop, Command Prompt, Calculator, Windows Media Player, Sound Recorder, built-in image burning functions (in Win7), all have to be removed from Windows because they are all in direct competition with other software (to name a few, Notepad++/ConTEXT, Word/OpenOffice, Photoshop/Paint Shop, LiteStep/SharpE (alternative windows shells), etc) and that including said software is a direct abuse of their monopoly.</p><p>So basically, you're all saying that since Microsoft has a monopoly with their OS, by law they can only provide the OS kernel and you have to build everything else on top of that.</p><p>Sounds kind of foolish to me... but if they can't include IE, why should they be able to include any other of their own software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , in reply to just about every commenter that replied to me...Basically , by your definition of " antitrust violation " , you 're basically telling me that Microsoft is not allowed to bundle any software in their OS because that would be an abuse of their monopoly .
At least... any Microsoft software .
So that means Notepad , Wordpad , Paint , Explorer ( the windows shell ; we 've already covered IE ) , Remote Desktop , Command Prompt , Calculator , Windows Media Player , Sound Recorder , built-in image burning functions ( in Win7 ) , all have to be removed from Windows because they are all in direct competition with other software ( to name a few , Notepad + + /ConTEXT , Word/OpenOffice , Photoshop/Paint Shop , LiteStep/SharpE ( alternative windows shells ) , etc ) and that including said software is a direct abuse of their monopoly.So basically , you 're all saying that since Microsoft has a monopoly with their OS , by law they can only provide the OS kernel and you have to build everything else on top of that.Sounds kind of foolish to me... but if they ca n't include IE , why should they be able to include any other of their own software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, in reply to just about every commenter that replied to me...Basically, by your definition of "antitrust violation", you're basically telling me that Microsoft is not allowed to bundle any software in their OS because that would be an abuse of their monopoly.
At least... any Microsoft software.
So that means Notepad, Wordpad, Paint, Explorer (the windows shell; we've already covered IE), Remote Desktop, Command Prompt, Calculator, Windows Media Player, Sound Recorder, built-in image burning functions (in Win7), all have to be removed from Windows because they are all in direct competition with other software (to name a few, Notepad++/ConTEXT, Word/OpenOffice, Photoshop/Paint Shop, LiteStep/SharpE (alternative windows shells), etc) and that including said software is a direct abuse of their monopoly.So basically, you're all saying that since Microsoft has a monopoly with their OS, by law they can only provide the OS kernel and you have to build everything else on top of that.Sounds kind of foolish to me... but if they can't include IE, why should they be able to include any other of their own software?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715491</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>jbeale53</author>
	<datestamp>1247753280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume you're being sarcastic about my unbiased summary; but if not, please disregard.</p><p>Fact is, I'm a Microsoft fanboi.  As much as I hate to admit it, I think that deep down, I really am.  I think it is simply because it's what I have supported for all of my professional career, which makes it comfortable to me. anyway...</p><p>First thing I thought when I saw the article was "Hell yeah, Microsoft!  Tell the EU to shove it up their ass!  Great move!".  But then, I saw that the EU only wants Microsoft to include other browser options; they didn't ask them to remove IE.  So I thought, gee Microsoft, why would you make the experience for the end user more difficult just to say "fuck you" to the EU?</p><p>Now, I'm not sure what is the best way for Microsoft to handle this.  There's all sorts of issues, like who's browsers will they include?  Firefox and Safari?  What about Opera?  What about other obscure little browsers?</p><p>I also agree with many of the folks that say that upgrading is a bad idea; but a standard user that buys a new computer now, and plans on taking advantage of the free upgrade later, doesn't need to deal with doing a fresh install.  I mean, seriously - how many of us have been paid a lot of money to do a fresh install of an OS for someone?  Do you think they would have spent that money if they felt comfortable doing it themselves?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume you 're being sarcastic about my unbiased summary ; but if not , please disregard.Fact is , I 'm a Microsoft fanboi .
As much as I hate to admit it , I think that deep down , I really am .
I think it is simply because it 's what I have supported for all of my professional career , which makes it comfortable to me .
anyway...First thing I thought when I saw the article was " Hell yeah , Microsoft !
Tell the EU to shove it up their ass !
Great move ! " .
But then , I saw that the EU only wants Microsoft to include other browser options ; they did n't ask them to remove IE .
So I thought , gee Microsoft , why would you make the experience for the end user more difficult just to say " fuck you " to the EU ? Now , I 'm not sure what is the best way for Microsoft to handle this .
There 's all sorts of issues , like who 's browsers will they include ?
Firefox and Safari ?
What about Opera ?
What about other obscure little browsers ? I also agree with many of the folks that say that upgrading is a bad idea ; but a standard user that buys a new computer now , and plans on taking advantage of the free upgrade later , does n't need to deal with doing a fresh install .
I mean , seriously - how many of us have been paid a lot of money to do a fresh install of an OS for someone ?
Do you think they would have spent that money if they felt comfortable doing it themselves ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume you're being sarcastic about my unbiased summary; but if not, please disregard.Fact is, I'm a Microsoft fanboi.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think that deep down, I really am.
I think it is simply because it's what I have supported for all of my professional career, which makes it comfortable to me.
anyway...First thing I thought when I saw the article was "Hell yeah, Microsoft!
Tell the EU to shove it up their ass!
Great move!".
But then, I saw that the EU only wants Microsoft to include other browser options; they didn't ask them to remove IE.
So I thought, gee Microsoft, why would you make the experience for the end user more difficult just to say "fuck you" to the EU?Now, I'm not sure what is the best way for Microsoft to handle this.
There's all sorts of issues, like who's browsers will they include?
Firefox and Safari?
What about Opera?
What about other obscure little browsers?I also agree with many of the folks that say that upgrading is a bad idea; but a standard user that buys a new computer now, and plans on taking advantage of the free upgrade later, doesn't need to deal with doing a fresh install.
I mean, seriously - how many of us have been paid a lot of money to do a fresh install of an OS for someone?
Do you think they would have spent that money if they felt comfortable doing it themselves?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716383</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247757720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>A software company should be able to include whatever they want</i></p><p>They can, usless they have been deemed by courts as being a monopoly and using that monopoly to an unfair advantage. If Apple had 30\% of the market and Linux had another 30\% and Windows had 30\% then they, too, could include anything they wanted. If Microsoft hadn't used their OS monopoly to gain unfair advantage in the browser market they would still be able to include anything they wanted.</p><p>Microsoft made its own bed, now it has to lie in it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A software company should be able to include whatever they wantThey can , usless they have been deemed by courts as being a monopoly and using that monopoly to an unfair advantage .
If Apple had 30 \ % of the market and Linux had another 30 \ % and Windows had 30 \ % then they , too , could include anything they wanted .
If Microsoft had n't used their OS monopoly to gain unfair advantage in the browser market they would still be able to include anything they wanted.Microsoft made its own bed , now it has to lie in it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A software company should be able to include whatever they wantThey can, usless they have been deemed by courts as being a monopoly and using that monopoly to an unfair advantage.
If Apple had 30\% of the market and Linux had another 30\% and Windows had 30\% then they, too, could include anything they wanted.
If Microsoft hadn't used their OS monopoly to gain unfair advantage in the browser market they would still be able to include anything they wanted.Microsoft made its own bed, now it has to lie in it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712465</id>
	<title>Future news prediction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247679060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Users install something else after feeling punished by Microsoft.</p><p>What is with these companies? I thought Microsoft was above this kind of passive aggression.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Users install something else after feeling punished by Microsoft.What is with these companies ?
I thought Microsoft was above this kind of passive aggression .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users install something else after feeling punished by Microsoft.What is with these companies?
I thought Microsoft was above this kind of passive aggression.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714655</id>
	<title>Come on people</title>
	<author>Karem Lore</author>
	<datestamp>1247746500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an avid Linux and FreeBSD user, have been for a long time.  However, I do use Windows on one of my home machine, mainly cause I like to play games...</p><p>Now, I think that Windows 7 is by far the best OS to have come out of Redmond for a long time.  Yes XP was good (after SP2), but it did suffer from limitations.  The 64-bit version is a dead end so my new hardware can not be leveraged with Windows XP.  I used Vista for a year and, while bloated and heavy, was an OK OS.  I have a miniMac for work at home, I don't like it...The user interface is klunky IMHO.  I do like the console though.</p><p>Suse Linux is my fav linux, purely because the issues I have had have been easily resolved, package management is good and it just works.  CentOS my fav for a server (with no gui).</p><p>Back on topic now, Microsoft didn't just decide to remove IE from Windows, they though long and hard about how they can still get what they want and fit into the requirements of the EU.  You think they just thought that that was the easiest?  No.  They did it because 1) They know that most people will just install IE anyway because its what they know. 2) They can blame the lack of functionality on the EU. 3) It's a two-finger salute to the EU.  It fulfills the law, but in the worst possible way. 4) If users had a choice on install they may indeed pick something else...it's like free advertising for other browsers, not something M$ would want to do.</p><p>Now the EU won't accept this.  They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid.  The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an avid Linux and FreeBSD user , have been for a long time .
However , I do use Windows on one of my home machine , mainly cause I like to play games...Now , I think that Windows 7 is by far the best OS to have come out of Redmond for a long time .
Yes XP was good ( after SP2 ) , but it did suffer from limitations .
The 64-bit version is a dead end so my new hardware can not be leveraged with Windows XP .
I used Vista for a year and , while bloated and heavy , was an OK OS .
I have a miniMac for work at home , I do n't like it...The user interface is klunky IMHO .
I do like the console though.Suse Linux is my fav linux , purely because the issues I have had have been easily resolved , package management is good and it just works .
CentOS my fav for a server ( with no gui ) .Back on topic now , Microsoft did n't just decide to remove IE from Windows , they though long and hard about how they can still get what they want and fit into the requirements of the EU .
You think they just thought that that was the easiest ?
No. They did it because 1 ) They know that most people will just install IE anyway because its what they know .
2 ) They can blame the lack of functionality on the EU .
3 ) It 's a two-finger salute to the EU .
It fulfills the law , but in the worst possible way .
4 ) If users had a choice on install they may indeed pick something else...it 's like free advertising for other browsers , not something M $ would want to do.Now the EU wo n't accept this .
They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid .
The question is if the law supports them , which I am not sure it will ( I think EU will lose , but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an avid Linux and FreeBSD user, have been for a long time.
However, I do use Windows on one of my home machine, mainly cause I like to play games...Now, I think that Windows 7 is by far the best OS to have come out of Redmond for a long time.
Yes XP was good (after SP2), but it did suffer from limitations.
The 64-bit version is a dead end so my new hardware can not be leveraged with Windows XP.
I used Vista for a year and, while bloated and heavy, was an OK OS.
I have a miniMac for work at home, I don't like it...The user interface is klunky IMHO.
I do like the console though.Suse Linux is my fav linux, purely because the issues I have had have been easily resolved, package management is good and it just works.
CentOS my fav for a server (with no gui).Back on topic now, Microsoft didn't just decide to remove IE from Windows, they though long and hard about how they can still get what they want and fit into the requirements of the EU.
You think they just thought that that was the easiest?
No.  They did it because 1) They know that most people will just install IE anyway because its what they know.
2) They can blame the lack of functionality on the EU.
3) It's a two-finger salute to the EU.
It fulfills the law, but in the worst possible way.
4) If users had a choice on install they may indeed pick something else...it's like free advertising for other browsers, not something M$ would want to do.Now the EU won't accept this.
They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid.
The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</id>
	<title>I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247679720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bracing for modded down... but here goes.</p><p>There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS. Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS? A software company should be able to include whatever they want, and if people don't like it then either don't buy it or stop complaining. But the fact of the matter is... anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer either likes it better than everything else, has no clue of the difference between it and Firefox and whatever else, or the more likely reason that their company forces them to, and that is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS.</p><p>But anyway the point of this comment is to say that of course Microsoft is going to do their best to make sure they meet all of the requirements and then some, because they are pissed. If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor, I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off by making things as hard as possible for them as a result of their stupid decision.</p><p>Also, great work on the unbiased summary there jbeale53 and samzenpus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bracing for modded down... but here goes.There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS .
Why is n't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS ?
A software company should be able to include whatever they want , and if people do n't like it then either do n't buy it or stop complaining .
But the fact of the matter is... anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer either likes it better than everything else , has no clue of the difference between it and Firefox and whatever else , or the more likely reason that their company forces them to , and that is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS.But anyway the point of this comment is to say that of course Microsoft is going to do their best to make sure they meet all of the requirements and then some , because they are pissed .
If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor , I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off by making things as hard as possible for them as a result of their stupid decision.Also , great work on the unbiased summary there jbeale53 and samzenpus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bracing for modded down... but here goes.There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS.
Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS?
A software company should be able to include whatever they want, and if people don't like it then either don't buy it or stop complaining.
But the fact of the matter is... anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer either likes it better than everything else, has no clue of the difference between it and Firefox and whatever else, or the more likely reason that their company forces them to, and that is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS.But anyway the point of this comment is to say that of course Microsoft is going to do their best to make sure they meet all of the requirements and then some, because they are pissed.
If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor, I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off by making things as hard as possible for them as a result of their stupid decision.Also, great work on the unbiased summary there jbeale53 and samzenpus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714641</id>
	<title>Re:side effects</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You must be living in different Spain than I do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be living in different Spain than I do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be living in different Spain than I do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713017</id>
	<title>Dang!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247683920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I will have to rebuild my botnets in Europe from scratch...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I will have to rebuild my botnets in Europe from scratch.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will have to rebuild my botnets in Europe from scratch...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715697</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1247754600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Too bad the EU saw fit to punish all of its citizens by making them go dig up a browser somewhere.</p></div><p> <a href="http://shishnet.org/ie.html#crippled" title="shishnet.org">I got bored of explaining why this is wrong over and over, so here's a link</a> [shishnet.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad the EU saw fit to punish all of its citizens by making them go dig up a browser somewhere .
I got bored of explaining why this is wrong over and over , so here 's a link [ shishnet.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad the EU saw fit to punish all of its citizens by making them go dig up a browser somewhere.
I got bored of explaining why this is wrong over and over, so here's a link [shishnet.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375</id>
	<title>The last thing we need ...</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1247678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last thing we need is out of date third party browsers bundled with Windows.  (And yes, by the time the disks get from RTM to the consumer the browsers will be out of date.)</p><p>A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway, so what's the point?  An incompetent user, on the other hand, will go ahead and use an out of date browser, and blame Microsoft for it when they get burned.</p><p>What I'd like to see is a mini-browser shipped with Windows: no Javascript, no plug-ins, no active content of any kind.  Just basic HTML.  This would be enough to let the user download whichever browser he or she chooses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last thing we need is out of date third party browsers bundled with Windows .
( And yes , by the time the disks get from RTM to the consumer the browsers will be out of date .
) A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway , so what 's the point ?
An incompetent user , on the other hand , will go ahead and use an out of date browser , and blame Microsoft for it when they get burned.What I 'd like to see is a mini-browser shipped with Windows : no Javascript , no plug-ins , no active content of any kind .
Just basic HTML .
This would be enough to let the user download whichever browser he or she chooses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last thing we need is out of date third party browsers bundled with Windows.
(And yes, by the time the disks get from RTM to the consumer the browsers will be out of date.
)A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway, so what's the point?
An incompetent user, on the other hand, will go ahead and use an out of date browser, and blame Microsoft for it when they get burned.What I'd like to see is a mini-browser shipped with Windows: no Javascript, no plug-ins, no active content of any kind.
Just basic HTML.
This would be enough to let the user download whichever browser he or she chooses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28730393</id>
	<title>Europe will be liberated first it seems</title>
	<author>al95</author>
	<datestamp>1247847840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha ha ha...<br>

Was tired of all this s**t. Last year I switched to Ubuntu...<br>
So far so good. No windows update c**p.<br>
Reading this thread is like watching people trying to swim away from the Titanic whilst you're in a boat.<br>
Common guys get on board... There's plenty of room...<br>
<br>
Looks like Europe is goind to be liberated before the US...OEM will find it easier to negociate opt-out of imposed Windows d**g on new HW<br>
<br>
Al</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha ha.. . Was tired of all this s * * t. Last year I switched to Ubuntu.. . So far so good .
No windows update c * * p . Reading this thread is like watching people trying to swim away from the Titanic whilst you 're in a boat .
Common guys get on board... There 's plenty of room.. . Looks like Europe is goind to be liberated before the US...OEM will find it easier to negociate opt-out of imposed Windows d * * g on new HW Al</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha ha...

Was tired of all this s**t. Last year I switched to Ubuntu...
So far so good.
No windows update c**p.
Reading this thread is like watching people trying to swim away from the Titanic whilst you're in a boat.
Common guys get on board... There's plenty of room...

Looks like Europe is goind to be liberated before the US...OEM will find it easier to negociate opt-out of imposed Windows d**g on new HW

Al</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714129</id>
	<title>Don't like it? Get a laptop!</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1247739540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly sure that Win7 won't be available as a "clean" install on a Laptop either. Why do you think the practice of bundling all sorts of crapware would cease?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly sure that Win7 wo n't be available as a " clean " install on a Laptop either .
Why do you think the practice of bundling all sorts of crapware would cease ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly sure that Win7 won't be available as a "clean" install on a Laptop either.
Why do you think the practice of bundling all sorts of crapware would cease?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717997</id>
	<title>Re:The more I hear about it...</title>
	<author>Jackdaw Rookery</author>
	<datestamp>1247763780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are aware that the EU is a larger, and richer, market than the USA, right?</p><p>No company wants to blow off the main users of its product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are aware that the EU is a larger , and richer , market than the USA , right ? No company wants to blow off the main users of its product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are aware that the EU is a larger, and richer, market than the USA, right?No company wants to blow off the main users of its product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718621</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1247765940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're using the interpretation of the law as a definition of the law to defend the law?  Brilliant, kiddo.  There is no browser market, and the intent of monopoly law is not to hog-tie a company so they can't compete.  Only deranged EU socialists think a company shouldn't be able to deliver a product with features substantially similar to their competitors because of their alleged "monopoly" status.  Deranged EU socialists and groupthink SlashDot Linux dweebs, that is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're using the interpretation of the law as a definition of the law to defend the law ?
Brilliant , kiddo .
There is no browser market , and the intent of monopoly law is not to hog-tie a company so they ca n't compete .
Only deranged EU socialists think a company should n't be able to deliver a product with features substantially similar to their competitors because of their alleged " monopoly " status .
Deranged EU socialists and groupthink SlashDot Linux dweebs , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're using the interpretation of the law as a definition of the law to defend the law?
Brilliant, kiddo.
There is no browser market, and the intent of monopoly law is not to hog-tie a company so they can't compete.
Only deranged EU socialists think a company shouldn't be able to deliver a product with features substantially similar to their competitors because of their alleged "monopoly" status.
Deranged EU socialists and groupthink SlashDot Linux dweebs, that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712571</id>
	<title>Better Experience for European Users?</title>
	<author>andersh</author>
	<datestamp>1247680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While upgrading is convenient, won't this actually give European users a better start with Windows 7? Windows is always better when it's clean and recently installed.</p><p>At least my experience with upgrading from one version of Windows to another has been "mixed". I prefer to install from scratch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While upgrading is convenient , wo n't this actually give European users a better start with Windows 7 ?
Windows is always better when it 's clean and recently installed.At least my experience with upgrading from one version of Windows to another has been " mixed " .
I prefer to install from scratch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While upgrading is convenient, won't this actually give European users a better start with Windows 7?
Windows is always better when it's clean and recently installed.At least my experience with upgrading from one version of Windows to another has been "mixed".
I prefer to install from scratch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713445</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>gr8dude</author>
	<datestamp>1247774760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is a <a href="http://forum.dekart.com/showthread.php?t=954&amp;highlight=partition" title="dekart.com">post</a> [dekart.com] that describes that approach in somewhat greater detail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is a post [ dekart.com ] that describes that approach in somewhat greater detail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is a post [dekart.com] that describes that approach in somewhat greater detail.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718507</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247765520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FTP is still in place. And then there's a multitude of computer related Magazines, that will explain to you how to do this and that in Word. I'd be surprised if they weren't to include a copy of a browser on their CD/DVD.</p><p>In case you really don't know how to get a decent browser without IE being in place, i suggest you order your neat new browser here: https://shipit.ubuntu.com/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FTP is still in place .
And then there 's a multitude of computer related Magazines , that will explain to you how to do this and that in Word .
I 'd be surprised if they were n't to include a copy of a browser on their CD/DVD.In case you really do n't know how to get a decent browser without IE being in place , i suggest you order your neat new browser here : https : //shipit.ubuntu.com/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FTP is still in place.
And then there's a multitude of computer related Magazines, that will explain to you how to do this and that in Word.
I'd be surprised if they weren't to include a copy of a browser on their CD/DVD.In case you really don't know how to get a decent browser without IE being in place, i suggest you order your neat new browser here: https://shipit.ubuntu.com/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713875</id>
	<title>side effects</title>
	<author>z\_gringo</author>
	<datestamp>1247736420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>And it what must be completely unrelated, Linux seems to be much more widely used here.   In Spain, we have about half of our technical users using Linux ONLY, the other half run both.   The non-technical users are still mostly on windows, but some run linux at home.  I see a lot more linux on the desktop in Europe than in the US, and also, with the exception of Microsoft Exchange and the odd MS SQL server here and there, ALL the other servers are Linux.  I haven't touched a server running microsoft in years now.  Not because I really have anything against them, we just don't need Windows servers for anything.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And it what must be completely unrelated , Linux seems to be much more widely used here .
In Spain , we have about half of our technical users using Linux ONLY , the other half run both .
The non-technical users are still mostly on windows , but some run linux at home .
I see a lot more linux on the desktop in Europe than in the US , and also , with the exception of Microsoft Exchange and the odd MS SQL server here and there , ALL the other servers are Linux .
I have n't touched a server running microsoft in years now .
Not because I really have anything against them , we just do n't need Windows servers for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And it what must be completely unrelated, Linux seems to be much more widely used here.
In Spain, we have about half of our technical users using Linux ONLY, the other half run both.
The non-technical users are still mostly on windows, but some run linux at home.
I see a lot more linux on the desktop in Europe than in the US, and also, with the exception of Microsoft Exchange and the odd MS SQL server here and there, ALL the other servers are Linux.
I haven't touched a server running microsoft in years now.
Not because I really have anything against them, we just don't need Windows servers for anything.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714545</id>
	<title>Re:"Only" told them to bundle other browsers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247744940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is misleading.  The EU hasn't told Microsoft to do anything.  They are still investigating but Microsoft decided to remove IE perhaps in the hope that the EU will be pressured into asking them to do that.  But so far the EU has not asked them to do anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is misleading .
The EU has n't told Microsoft to do anything .
They are still investigating but Microsoft decided to remove IE perhaps in the hope that the EU will be pressured into asking them to do that .
But so far the EU has not asked them to do anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is misleading.
The EU hasn't told Microsoft to do anything.
They are still investigating but Microsoft decided to remove IE perhaps in the hope that the EU will be pressured into asking them to do that.
But so far the EU has not asked them to do anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714771</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247748060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the hell are you responding to? Cause it's definitely not your parent post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell are you responding to ?
Cause it 's definitely not your parent post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell are you responding to?
Cause it's definitely not your parent post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719331</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>DrgnDancer</author>
	<datestamp>1247768640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't actually find backing up and restoring the data to be the bad bit of a Windows "wipe/restore".  It's the software installations.  I can start a backup to network drive, go do something else, reinstall Windows, start a restore from network drive, go do something else.  The backup and restore can be safely ignored while I go for a walk, take a nap, watch TV, read a book, play on another computer, or whatever.  Software installs take nearly as long and require constant supervision.  games are the worst for this. <i>World of Warcraft</i> takes 25-30 minutes to install (at leas that's on a DVD and can be ignored for some portion of the time) and then another hour or two for updates. <i>Knights of the Old Republic II</i> came on fricken CDs.  I have to change disks every 4-6 minutes.   I just rebuild my Wife's computer so the pain is still fresh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't actually find backing up and restoring the data to be the bad bit of a Windows " wipe/restore " .
It 's the software installations .
I can start a backup to network drive , go do something else , reinstall Windows , start a restore from network drive , go do something else .
The backup and restore can be safely ignored while I go for a walk , take a nap , watch TV , read a book , play on another computer , or whatever .
Software installs take nearly as long and require constant supervision .
games are the worst for this .
World of Warcraft takes 25-30 minutes to install ( at leas that 's on a DVD and can be ignored for some portion of the time ) and then another hour or two for updates .
Knights of the Old Republic II came on fricken CDs .
I have to change disks every 4-6 minutes .
I just rebuild my Wife 's computer so the pain is still fresh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't actually find backing up and restoring the data to be the bad bit of a Windows "wipe/restore".
It's the software installations.
I can start a backup to network drive, go do something else, reinstall Windows, start a restore from network drive, go do something else.
The backup and restore can be safely ignored while I go for a walk, take a nap, watch TV, read a book, play on another computer, or whatever.
Software installs take nearly as long and require constant supervision.
games are the worst for this.
World of Warcraft takes 25-30 minutes to install (at leas that's on a DVD and can be ignored for some portion of the time) and then another hour or two for updates.
Knights of the Old Republic II came on fricken CDs.
I have to change disks every 4-6 minutes.
I just rebuild my Wife's computer so the pain is still fresh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714877</id>
	<title>install v upgrade</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1247749320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is there anyway of tricking the installer to do an upgrade instead of wiping the whole syste. I do recall it was possible with earlier versions of Windows. Saved you from having to buy two CDs<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is there anyway of tricking the installer to do an upgrade instead of wiping the whole syste .
I do recall it was possible with earlier versions of Windows .
Saved you from having to buy two CDs . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is there anyway of tricking the installer to do an upgrade instead of wiping the whole syste.
I do recall it was possible with earlier versions of Windows.
Saved you from having to buy two CDs ..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28724763</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1247749560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market.</p><p>What totally bemuses me is that anybody considers "web browsers" a market in a commercial sense, or if they do, that it is considered a separate "market" to the "OS" market.  The days when an OS would ship without a web browser are so long behind us that it is silly to even contemplate.  We are so far beyond that now that the debate these days is whether an OS is anything *other* than a web browser.  And then let us consider this so-called "web browser market" - how much do consumers pay for a web browser?  How much extra money are they being extorted to pay because MS is "forcing" them to use the MS "built in" web browser through their OS monopoly?   Hmmm, let's see:</p><p>IE - Free<br>FireFox - Free<br>Chrome - Free<br>Opera - Free<br>Safari - Free</p><p>My goodness, someone must stand up for the consumer and defend their choice of Free against Free!  Do you suppose that if IE was not bundled or not free then the others would be making billions of $$$ from their Free web browser offerings?   Of course not, we'd have the same line up of contenders and they'd all be free.  The whole thing is a just a joke.   MS should definitely be forced to *allow* installation of any browser as the default (including deep integration into APIs such as help, explorer etc. which they do not currently do) but this idea that them including a browser in their OS hurts the consumer is just ridiculous.    I *want* deep integration of the web into my computer - I want it on my desktop, in my taskbar, in my start menu, in my email, in my word processing documents.   The web is everything and everything is the web.   Preventing MS or anybody else from doing that hurts me, not helps me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market.What totally bemuses me is that anybody considers " web browsers " a market in a commercial sense , or if they do , that it is considered a separate " market " to the " OS " market .
The days when an OS would ship without a web browser are so long behind us that it is silly to even contemplate .
We are so far beyond that now that the debate these days is whether an OS is anything * other * than a web browser .
And then let us consider this so-called " web browser market " - how much do consumers pay for a web browser ?
How much extra money are they being extorted to pay because MS is " forcing " them to use the MS " built in " web browser through their OS monopoly ?
Hmmm , let 's see : IE - FreeFireFox - FreeChrome - FreeOpera - FreeSafari - FreeMy goodness , someone must stand up for the consumer and defend their choice of Free against Free !
Do you suppose that if IE was not bundled or not free then the others would be making billions of $ $ $ from their Free web browser offerings ?
Of course not , we 'd have the same line up of contenders and they 'd all be free .
The whole thing is a just a joke .
MS should definitely be forced to * allow * installation of any browser as the default ( including deep integration into APIs such as help , explorer etc .
which they do not currently do ) but this idea that them including a browser in their OS hurts the consumer is just ridiculous .
I * want * deep integration of the web into my computer - I want it on my desktop , in my taskbar , in my start menu , in my email , in my word processing documents .
The web is everything and everything is the web .
Preventing MS or anybody else from doing that hurts me , not helps me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  they are leveraging that Monopoly in order to gain one in another market.What totally bemuses me is that anybody considers "web browsers" a market in a commercial sense, or if they do, that it is considered a separate "market" to the "OS" market.
The days when an OS would ship without a web browser are so long behind us that it is silly to even contemplate.
We are so far beyond that now that the debate these days is whether an OS is anything *other* than a web browser.
And then let us consider this so-called "web browser market" - how much do consumers pay for a web browser?
How much extra money are they being extorted to pay because MS is "forcing" them to use the MS "built in" web browser through their OS monopoly?
Hmmm, let's see:IE - FreeFireFox - FreeChrome - FreeOpera - FreeSafari - FreeMy goodness, someone must stand up for the consumer and defend their choice of Free against Free!
Do you suppose that if IE was not bundled or not free then the others would be making billions of $$$ from their Free web browser offerings?
Of course not, we'd have the same line up of contenders and they'd all be free.
The whole thing is a just a joke.
MS should definitely be forced to *allow* installation of any browser as the default (including deep integration into APIs such as help, explorer etc.
which they do not currently do) but this idea that them including a browser in their OS hurts the consumer is just ridiculous.
I *want* deep integration of the web into my computer - I want it on my desktop, in my taskbar, in my start menu, in my email, in my word processing documents.
The web is everything and everything is the web.
Preventing MS or anybody else from doing that hurts me, not helps me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712537</id>
	<title>who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247679840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Europe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719695</id>
	<title>Re:"Only" told them to bundle other browsers?</title>
	<author>16K Ram Pack</author>
	<datestamp>1247769780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Frankly, Opera can go suck on a bag of dicks over this. I'm amazed they're still in business with their 0.5\% market share.</p><p>I like alternative browsers, run mostly FF &amp; Chrome on Windows, used to run Opera and test my apps against Opera, but this is just a pain in the arse for most users who don't really care and just want "the blue E".</p><p>No-one is going to see a list of 5 browsers including "Opera" and install it over something from Microsoft, Google or Apple, unless they know about it already</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Frankly , Opera can go suck on a bag of dicks over this .
I 'm amazed they 're still in business with their 0.5 \ % market share.I like alternative browsers , run mostly FF &amp; Chrome on Windows , used to run Opera and test my apps against Opera , but this is just a pain in the arse for most users who do n't really care and just want " the blue E " .No-one is going to see a list of 5 browsers including " Opera " and install it over something from Microsoft , Google or Apple , unless they know about it already</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Frankly, Opera can go suck on a bag of dicks over this.
I'm amazed they're still in business with their 0.5\% market share.I like alternative browsers, run mostly FF &amp; Chrome on Windows, used to run Opera and test my apps against Opera, but this is just a pain in the arse for most users who don't really care and just want "the blue E".No-one is going to see a list of 5 browsers including "Opera" and install it over something from Microsoft, Google or Apple, unless they know about it already</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713899</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>tubs</author>
	<datestamp>1247736780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One can't help but wonder why any properly designed app for a multi user environment would want to do that.

Surely the ideal is to keep "programs" and "data" away from each other rather than combining them together.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One ca n't help but wonder why any properly designed app for a multi user environment would want to do that .
Surely the ideal is to keep " programs " and " data " away from each other rather than combining them together .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One can't help but wonder why any properly designed app for a multi user environment would want to do that.
Surely the ideal is to keep "programs" and "data" away from each other rather than combining them together.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713223</id>
	<title>Upgrade BAD</title>
	<author>tg123</author>
	<datestamp>1247685840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience Upgrade BAD.</p><p>The number of calls I would get because an upgrade went south. (I just used to cringe , users would never have a backup)</p><p>A CLEAN INSTALL is always the best.</p><p>You mean I can have windows without all the security issues of internet explorer?</p><p><a href="http://www.nwnetworks.com/iesecurity.htm" title="nwnetworks.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.nwnetworks.com/iesecurity.htm</a> [nwnetworks.com]</p><p>
&nbsp; Just have to do a clean install?</p><p>Yes Please.</p><p>Anybody got friends in Europe ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience Upgrade BAD.The number of calls I would get because an upgrade went south .
( I just used to cringe , users would never have a backup ) A CLEAN INSTALL is always the best.You mean I can have windows without all the security issues of internet explorer ? http : //www.nwnetworks.com/iesecurity.htm [ nwnetworks.com ]   Just have to do a clean install ? Yes Please.Anybody got friends in Europe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience Upgrade BAD.The number of calls I would get because an upgrade went south.
(I just used to cringe , users would never have a backup)A CLEAN INSTALL is always the best.You mean I can have windows without all the security issues of internet explorer?http://www.nwnetworks.com/iesecurity.htm [nwnetworks.com]
  Just have to do a clean install?Yes Please.Anybody got friends in Europe ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"So you can save 5 minutes backing up your stuff?"</p><p>Hell, I don't even worry about that anymore.  Partition for Windows on C:, partition for all my data on D:.  C: gets wiped, D: remains untouched.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So you can save 5 minutes backing up your stuff ?
" Hell , I do n't even worry about that anymore .
Partition for Windows on C : , partition for all my data on D : .
C : gets wiped , D : remains untouched .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"So you can save 5 minutes backing up your stuff?
"Hell, I don't even worry about that anymore.
Partition for Windows on C:, partition for all my data on D:.
C: gets wiped, D: remains untouched.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712809</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247681940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thing is, they don't have to leverage their OS monopoly to gain leverage in the browser market, as they already have a monopoly there!</p><p>What I never understood is why Internet Explorer is so tightly integrated with windows. Sure, an OS at that level should have a standard web browser. Why shouldn't it be IE? But you should also be able to remove it without sacrificing twelve virgins to the devil first. If IE was easy to remove/replace with another browser, no-one should have to complain.</p><p>Microsoft could say: "If the customer wants to use another browser, they are perfectly able to do so, just install it and remove our tripe. Or don't. It's up to you".</p><p>Currently though their stupid integration makes having two versions of IE on one machine impossible, which makes developer testing a nightmare. This is the only Issue I have from IE (apart from any browser version before 8, but that's another story again).</p><p>This "pick a browser at install" idea introduces a silly extra step to a process that should be as simple as possible. On a Mac you get Safari by default. Makes sense that on a Windows machine you get IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thing is , they do n't have to leverage their OS monopoly to gain leverage in the browser market , as they already have a monopoly there ! What I never understood is why Internet Explorer is so tightly integrated with windows .
Sure , an OS at that level should have a standard web browser .
Why should n't it be IE ?
But you should also be able to remove it without sacrificing twelve virgins to the devil first .
If IE was easy to remove/replace with another browser , no-one should have to complain.Microsoft could say : " If the customer wants to use another browser , they are perfectly able to do so , just install it and remove our tripe .
Or do n't .
It 's up to you " .Currently though their stupid integration makes having two versions of IE on one machine impossible , which makes developer testing a nightmare .
This is the only Issue I have from IE ( apart from any browser version before 8 , but that 's another story again ) .This " pick a browser at install " idea introduces a silly extra step to a process that should be as simple as possible .
On a Mac you get Safari by default .
Makes sense that on a Windows machine you get IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thing is, they don't have to leverage their OS monopoly to gain leverage in the browser market, as they already have a monopoly there!What I never understood is why Internet Explorer is so tightly integrated with windows.
Sure, an OS at that level should have a standard web browser.
Why shouldn't it be IE?
But you should also be able to remove it without sacrificing twelve virgins to the devil first.
If IE was easy to remove/replace with another browser, no-one should have to complain.Microsoft could say: "If the customer wants to use another browser, they are perfectly able to do so, just install it and remove our tripe.
Or don't.
It's up to you".Currently though their stupid integration makes having two versions of IE on one machine impossible, which makes developer testing a nightmare.
This is the only Issue I have from IE (apart from any browser version before 8, but that's another story again).This "pick a browser at install" idea introduces a silly extra step to a process that should be as simple as possible.
On a Mac you get Safari by default.
Makes sense that on a Windows machine you get IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714019</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use the ftp command built into Windows ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use the ftp command built into Windows ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use the ftp command built into Windows ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713233</id>
	<title>Uh, use Windows Easy Transfer?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247685900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft makes available a tool to transfer user files and settings.  It's not quite the same as an in-place upgrade, but in some ways it's better since it doesn't keep all the app baggage that may have accumulated over time.  After you do the "Easy Transfer", it tells you what apps you need to reinstall.  Assuming you have copies of those apps, you get to retain all your settings.</p><p>http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2b6f1631-973a-45c7-a4ec-4928fa173266&amp;DisplayLang=en</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft makes available a tool to transfer user files and settings .
It 's not quite the same as an in-place upgrade , but in some ways it 's better since it does n't keep all the app baggage that may have accumulated over time .
After you do the " Easy Transfer " , it tells you what apps you need to reinstall .
Assuming you have copies of those apps , you get to retain all your settings.http : //www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx ? FamilyID = 2b6f1631-973a-45c7-a4ec-4928fa173266&amp;DisplayLang = en</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft makes available a tool to transfer user files and settings.
It's not quite the same as an in-place upgrade, but in some ways it's better since it doesn't keep all the app baggage that may have accumulated over time.
After you do the "Easy Transfer", it tells you what apps you need to reinstall.
Assuming you have copies of those apps, you get to retain all your settings.http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=2b6f1631-973a-45c7-a4ec-4928fa173266&amp;DisplayLang=en</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28726535</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247771460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upgrade disks are a scam. The amount of times I am passed machine to re-format with an upgrade disk and no original OS.</p><p>Good riddance</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrade disks are a scam .
The amount of times I am passed machine to re-format with an upgrade disk and no original OS.Good riddance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrade disks are a scam.
The amount of times I am passed machine to re-format with an upgrade disk and no original OS.Good riddance</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715343</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>GreyWolf3000</author>
	<datestamp>1247752440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't you mount a different hard drive partition into C:\Windows and then keep all your programs?</p><p>Why would someone want more than one root partition?  I do not comprehend...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't you mount a different hard drive partition into C : \ Windows and then keep all your programs ? Why would someone want more than one root partition ?
I do not comprehend.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't you mount a different hard drive partition into C:\Windows and then keep all your programs?Why would someone want more than one root partition?
I do not comprehend...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714163</id>
	<title>The EU is getting the better deal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247739900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's pretty obvious to me that not having IE8 is a huge advantage. Just think of all the critical security patches Windows won't annoy you with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's pretty obvious to me that not having IE8 is a huge advantage .
Just think of all the critical security patches Windows wo n't annoy you with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's pretty obvious to me that not having IE8 is a huge advantage.
Just think of all the critical security patches Windows won't annoy you with.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722701</id>
	<title>Re:Windows</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1247738580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Features that you may use all the time (I sure do):</p><ul><li>Instant search. First and foremost, every modern OS has this. XP drives me nuts for this very reason.</li><li>The ability to run as a non-Administrator without tearing your hair out. I ran as a standard user on XP for 3 months, and while technically possible, it was a pain beyond reason - too many things were too hard to elevate when I needed to. I switched to Linux, and only started using Windows again when UAC in Vista made running as a standard user practical.</li><li>Previous versions. Recover files you moved off the drive, or deleted permanently, or overwrote with another application, or updated and it broke something - I don't use it often but when I do, it's a godsend</li><li>New UI tricks. It's a snap to put two windows up side-by-side, each filling half the screen (just drag each window to the screen's edge). Aero Peek lets me see a window in the background without needing to bring it forward. Stuff like that gets very handy until you just get used to it,a nd not having it feels wrong.</li><li>Automatic fetching of drivers from Windows Update. You don't even need to check the manufacturer's site for driver updates anymore.</li></ul><p>There's a lot more, but those are the emmediately relevant things that I expect everybody, especially if they're sufficiently tech-savvy to be on Slashdot, will have a use for. The new security features are great (I love the firewall) but the things above are the ones that really got me.</p><p>As for people plateauing, not really. It's more a matter that Vista got such a bad rep that people *assumed* it had no features, and never even checked. At least half the "new" features in Win7 that I hear people crowing about were actually present in Vista. Give the OS a try, and I think you'll see for yourself what the excitement is about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Features that you may use all the time ( I sure do ) : Instant search .
First and foremost , every modern OS has this .
XP drives me nuts for this very reason.The ability to run as a non-Administrator without tearing your hair out .
I ran as a standard user on XP for 3 months , and while technically possible , it was a pain beyond reason - too many things were too hard to elevate when I needed to .
I switched to Linux , and only started using Windows again when UAC in Vista made running as a standard user practical.Previous versions .
Recover files you moved off the drive , or deleted permanently , or overwrote with another application , or updated and it broke something - I do n't use it often but when I do , it 's a godsendNew UI tricks .
It 's a snap to put two windows up side-by-side , each filling half the screen ( just drag each window to the screen 's edge ) .
Aero Peek lets me see a window in the background without needing to bring it forward .
Stuff like that gets very handy until you just get used to it,a nd not having it feels wrong.Automatic fetching of drivers from Windows Update .
You do n't even need to check the manufacturer 's site for driver updates anymore.There 's a lot more , but those are the emmediately relevant things that I expect everybody , especially if they 're sufficiently tech-savvy to be on Slashdot , will have a use for .
The new security features are great ( I love the firewall ) but the things above are the ones that really got me.As for people plateauing , not really .
It 's more a matter that Vista got such a bad rep that people * assumed * it had no features , and never even checked .
At least half the " new " features in Win7 that I hear people crowing about were actually present in Vista .
Give the OS a try , and I think you 'll see for yourself what the excitement is about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Features that you may use all the time (I sure do):Instant search.
First and foremost, every modern OS has this.
XP drives me nuts for this very reason.The ability to run as a non-Administrator without tearing your hair out.
I ran as a standard user on XP for 3 months, and while technically possible, it was a pain beyond reason - too many things were too hard to elevate when I needed to.
I switched to Linux, and only started using Windows again when UAC in Vista made running as a standard user practical.Previous versions.
Recover files you moved off the drive, or deleted permanently, or overwrote with another application, or updated and it broke something - I don't use it often but when I do, it's a godsendNew UI tricks.
It's a snap to put two windows up side-by-side, each filling half the screen (just drag each window to the screen's edge).
Aero Peek lets me see a window in the background without needing to bring it forward.
Stuff like that gets very handy until you just get used to it,a nd not having it feels wrong.Automatic fetching of drivers from Windows Update.
You don't even need to check the manufacturer's site for driver updates anymore.There's a lot more, but those are the emmediately relevant things that I expect everybody, especially if they're sufficiently tech-savvy to be on Slashdot, will have a use for.
The new security features are great (I love the firewall) but the things above are the ones that really got me.As for people plateauing, not really.
It's more a matter that Vista got such a bad rep that people *assumed* it had no features, and never even checked.
At least half the "new" features in Win7 that I hear people crowing about were actually present in Vista.
Give the OS a try, and I think you'll see for yourself what the excitement is about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719067</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247767560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>c:\&gt; ftp ftp.mozilla.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>c : \ &gt; ftp ftp.mozilla.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c:\&gt; ftp ftp.mozilla.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715593</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>CyberDragon777</author>
	<datestamp>1247754060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the machine you already have, before you install Windows 7 on it?<br>From another machine?<br>From a disc included with a computer magazine?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>Lots of options.</p><p>(And no, grandma won't have to deal with it, because she won't buy retail Windows anyway. She will get Windows 7 preinstalled on her new machine with a browser preinstalled by the OEM (along with lots of other crapware.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the machine you already have , before you install Windows 7 on it ? From another machine ? From a disc included with a computer magazine ?
...Lots of options .
( And no , grandma wo n't have to deal with it , because she wo n't buy retail Windows anyway .
She will get Windows 7 preinstalled on her new machine with a browser preinstalled by the OEM ( along with lots of other crapware .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the machine you already have, before you install Windows 7 on it?From another machine?From a disc included with a computer magazine?
...Lots of options.
(And no, grandma won't have to deal with it, because she won't buy retail Windows anyway.
She will get Windows 7 preinstalled on her new machine with a browser preinstalled by the OEM (along with lots of other crapware.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713071</id>
	<title>Re:Why must I have Windows 7?</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1247684340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows XP also requires activation.</p><p>Windows XP with SP3 is considerably SLOWER on my fastest system than Vista with SP2, at least subjectively. If your system is actually fast, Vista is just not that slow any more. Windows 7 is reputedly snappier than Vista.</p><p>Windows Vista (And thus 7, which shares its major security features) is more secure by design than Windows XP in meaningful ways.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows XP also requires activation.Windows XP with SP3 is considerably SLOWER on my fastest system than Vista with SP2 , at least subjectively .
If your system is actually fast , Vista is just not that slow any more .
Windows 7 is reputedly snappier than Vista.Windows Vista ( And thus 7 , which shares its major security features ) is more secure by design than Windows XP in meaningful ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows XP also requires activation.Windows XP with SP3 is considerably SLOWER on my fastest system than Vista with SP2, at least subjectively.
If your system is actually fast, Vista is just not that slow any more.
Windows 7 is reputedly snappier than Vista.Windows Vista (And thus 7, which shares its major security features) is more secure by design than Windows XP in meaningful ways.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712951</id>
	<title>ma8le</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247683320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">the '3ommunity'</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the '3ommunity ' [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the '3ommunity' [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714767</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>idamaybrown</author>
	<datestamp>1247748000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So where can I get an Apple compatable system other than from apple?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So where can I get an Apple compatable system other than from apple ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So where can I get an Apple compatable system other than from apple?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712825</id>
	<title>Re:The last thing we need ...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1247682060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway,</p><p>And the less than competent?</p><p>With no browser installed at all, you better hope Microsoft puts some automated Install scripts in or your Aunt Edna will insist you come over an fix her brand new machine.</p><p>Try explaining FTP to your Aunt or your Grandmother.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway,And the less than competent ? With no browser installed at all , you better hope Microsoft puts some automated Install scripts in or your Aunt Edna will insist you come over an fix her brand new machine.Try explaining FTP to your Aunt or your Grandmother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; A competent user will have to download the latest version anyway,And the less than competent?With no browser installed at all, you better hope Microsoft puts some automated Install scripts in or your Aunt Edna will insist you come over an fix her brand new machine.Try explaining FTP to your Aunt or your Grandmother.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712565</id>
	<title>Re:Why must I have Windows 7?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all. Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7? Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.</p></div><p>Are you serious? Your post is  like someone saying "Why should I buy an iPhone, my current cell phone can text just fine?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all .
Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7 ?
Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.Are you serious ?
Your post is like someone saying " Why should I buy an iPhone , my current cell phone can text just fine ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all.
Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7?
Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.Are you serious?
Your post is  like someone saying "Why should I buy an iPhone, my current cell phone can text just fine?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919</id>
	<title>If you have to do a clean install anyway...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247682960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715729</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>je ne sais quoi</author>
	<datestamp>1247754780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Because Apple is not convicted of abusing monopoly powers to control a market.</p></div></blockquote><p>

You have to give the context here.  When Microsoft was convicted of being a monopolist because, even if you wanted to, you <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9903/09/removeie.idg/" title="cnn.com">couldn't delete IE</a> [cnn.com] in Windows 98.  I'm not sure about the PC world, but any applications that Apple installs are easily deleted in Mac OS X, you just drag the to the trash, and empty it.  It's that simple.  Microsoft is a convicted monopolist because they abused their position as the dominant OS manufacturer to force people to run IE, Apple may include lots and lots of applications on their software (and even automatically download or install them) but they have never forced you to use their application, and this is precisely why they are not a convicted monopolist whereas Microsoft is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Apple is not convicted of abusing monopoly powers to control a market .
You have to give the context here .
When Microsoft was convicted of being a monopolist because , even if you wanted to , you could n't delete IE [ cnn.com ] in Windows 98 .
I 'm not sure about the PC world , but any applications that Apple installs are easily deleted in Mac OS X , you just drag the to the trash , and empty it .
It 's that simple .
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist because they abused their position as the dominant OS manufacturer to force people to run IE , Apple may include lots and lots of applications on their software ( and even automatically download or install them ) but they have never forced you to use their application , and this is precisely why they are not a convicted monopolist whereas Microsoft is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Apple is not convicted of abusing monopoly powers to control a market.
You have to give the context here.
When Microsoft was convicted of being a monopolist because, even if you wanted to, you couldn't delete IE [cnn.com] in Windows 98.
I'm not sure about the PC world, but any applications that Apple installs are easily deleted in Mac OS X, you just drag the to the trash, and empty it.
It's that simple.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist because they abused their position as the dominant OS manufacturer to force people to run IE, Apple may include lots and lots of applications on their software (and even automatically download or install them) but they have never forced you to use their application, and this is precisely why they are not a convicted monopolist whereas Microsoft is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712805</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712551</id>
	<title>Re:Why must I have Windows 7?</title>
	<author>Bill, Shooter of Bul</author>
	<datestamp>1247680020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because at some point, hardware manufactures are going to stop writing drivers for xp. Win 2000 drivers are getting pretty rare for a lot of hardware, another 5 years and xp will be in the same boat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because at some point , hardware manufactures are going to stop writing drivers for xp .
Win 2000 drivers are getting pretty rare for a lot of hardware , another 5 years and xp will be in the same boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because at some point, hardware manufactures are going to stop writing drivers for xp.
Win 2000 drivers are getting pretty rare for a lot of hardware, another 5 years and xp will be in the same boat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329</id>
	<title>OOh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247677560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I would like to find fault with Microsoft here...
</p><p>Anybody that "upgrades" a Windows operating system in place from one version to another is an idiot.
</p><p>People should reinstall their Windows from scratch at least once a year.  Any less frequent than that and the successive patches to patches to patches become too much for the system to bear.  The successive software installs and uninstalls leave hanging dependencies that slow the system to even worse of a crawl than it was at first install.  An "upgraded" system drags with it the legacy rootkits previously installed, and those cause issues even in the best case.  In the worst case the malware and crudware bog down the system so much you're lucky to get any work done at all.
</p><p>A fresh install of XP on modern equipment is almost as snappy as Linux.  After a year you're powering up and going for coffee while it "wakes up".  After an "OS Upgrade" you don't dare power the thing off unless you're going on vacation for a week.  Patch Tuesday has spawned "Team Building Wednesday".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I would like to find fault with Microsoft here.. . Anybody that " upgrades " a Windows operating system in place from one version to another is an idiot .
People should reinstall their Windows from scratch at least once a year .
Any less frequent than that and the successive patches to patches to patches become too much for the system to bear .
The successive software installs and uninstalls leave hanging dependencies that slow the system to even worse of a crawl than it was at first install .
An " upgraded " system drags with it the legacy rootkits previously installed , and those cause issues even in the best case .
In the worst case the malware and crudware bog down the system so much you 're lucky to get any work done at all .
A fresh install of XP on modern equipment is almost as snappy as Linux .
After a year you 're powering up and going for coffee while it " wakes up " .
After an " OS Upgrade " you do n't dare power the thing off unless you 're going on vacation for a week .
Patch Tuesday has spawned " Team Building Wednesday " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I would like to find fault with Microsoft here...
Anybody that "upgrades" a Windows operating system in place from one version to another is an idiot.
People should reinstall their Windows from scratch at least once a year.
Any less frequent than that and the successive patches to patches to patches become too much for the system to bear.
The successive software installs and uninstalls leave hanging dependencies that slow the system to even worse of a crawl than it was at first install.
An "upgraded" system drags with it the legacy rootkits previously installed, and those cause issues even in the best case.
In the worst case the malware and crudware bog down the system so much you're lucky to get any work done at all.
A fresh install of XP on modern equipment is almost as snappy as Linux.
After a year you're powering up and going for coffee while it "wakes up".
After an "OS Upgrade" you don't dare power the thing off unless you're going on vacation for a week.
Patch Tuesday has spawned "Team Building Wednesday".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714925</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>Beyond\_GoodandEvil</author>
	<datestamp>1247749680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Don't worry, the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way!<br></i> <br>Umm no, Saint-Gobain not withstanding, the EU plays the same domestic favoritism that all govts play.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't worry , the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way !
Umm no , Saint-Gobain not withstanding , the EU plays the same domestic favoritism that all govts play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't worry, the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way!
Umm no, Saint-Gobain not withstanding, the EU plays the same domestic favoritism that all govts play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718175</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>hyphz</author>
	<datestamp>1247764500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No.. they'll just use their technocracy power to cripple computers in the UK for a couple days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No.. they 'll just use their technocracy power to cripple computers in the UK for a couple days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No.. they'll just use their technocracy power to cripple computers in the UK for a couple days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28721421</id>
	<title>Re:Petulance</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247776620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports, so that it can be implemented in other browsers</p></div><p>You mean the ability to host IE in applications? It has been <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa752127(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com">public</a> [microsoft.com] for a long time now, and people have re-implemented that on top of <a href="http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/control.htm" title="www.iol.ie">Mozilla</a> [www.iol.ie].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the API</p></div><p>So corporations should be forced to open source their products now?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bundle Mozilla, Opera and Safari</p></div><p>Why not Chrome? Who decides?</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Ask the user for a URL, then download a browser as part of the installation process</p><p>Ask the user to insert a CD containing the browser</p></div><p>That doesn't make much sense. It's obviously far more convenient to finish the installation, and let the user use the preinstalled browser to download and install whatever he wants (or, if he really has browser-on-a-CD, stick that into the hard drive and watch autorun install it). There's no point in making this part of install process at all.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports , so that it can be implemented in other browsersYou mean the ability to host IE in applications ?
It has been public [ microsoft.com ] for a long time now , and people have re-implemented that on top of Mozilla [ www.iol.ie ] .Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what 's missing from the APISo corporations should be forced to open source their products now ? Bundle Mozilla , Opera and SafariWhy not Chrome ?
Who decides ?
Ask the user for a URL , then download a browser as part of the installation processAsk the user to insert a CD containing the browserThat does n't make much sense .
It 's obviously far more convenient to finish the installation , and let the user use the preinstalled browser to download and install whatever he wants ( or , if he really has browser-on-a-CD , stick that into the hard drive and watch autorun install it ) .
There 's no point in making this part of install process at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports, so that it can be implemented in other browsersYou mean the ability to host IE in applications?
It has been public [microsoft.com] for a long time now, and people have re-implemented that on top of Mozilla [www.iol.ie].Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the APISo corporations should be forced to open source their products now?Bundle Mozilla, Opera and SafariWhy not Chrome?
Who decides?
Ask the user for a URL, then download a browser as part of the installation processAsk the user to insert a CD containing the browserThat doesn't make much sense.
It's obviously far more convenient to finish the installation, and let the user use the preinstalled browser to download and install whatever he wants (or, if he really has browser-on-a-CD, stick that into the hard drive and watch autorun install it).
There's no point in making this part of install process at all.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718955</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>r\_jensen11</author>
	<datestamp>1247767140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good question.  I tried calling them at (800)FIREFOX to order a floppy, but they tried to sell me area rugs.  I'm very confused<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:^S</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good question .
I tried calling them at ( 800 ) FIREFOX to order a floppy , but they tried to sell me area rugs .
I 'm very confused : ^ S</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good question.
I tried calling them at (800)FIREFOX to order a floppy, but they tried to sell me area rugs.
I'm very confused :^S</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713685</id>
	<title>i represent burger king and wendy's</title>
	<author>uepuejq</author>
	<datestamp>1247777040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>we've found that mcdonald's consistently sells their 'big mac' cheeseburgers in their branded restaurants.  this prevents potential customers of burger and wendy's from purchasing alternative burgers, such as the whopper with cheese and the whatever wendy's sells.  the united states government has determined that if mcdonald's begins to sell wendy's and burger king cheeseburgers alongside the big mac, a pending antitrust suit against mcdonald's will be dropped.

mcdonald's has decided to stop selling the big mac completely, which is totally unfair, because our entire business plan was based on forcing our competitor to carry our products!</htmltext>
<tokenext>we 've found that mcdonald 's consistently sells their 'big mac ' cheeseburgers in their branded restaurants .
this prevents potential customers of burger and wendy 's from purchasing alternative burgers , such as the whopper with cheese and the whatever wendy 's sells .
the united states government has determined that if mcdonald 's begins to sell wendy 's and burger king cheeseburgers alongside the big mac , a pending antitrust suit against mcdonald 's will be dropped .
mcdonald 's has decided to stop selling the big mac completely , which is totally unfair , because our entire business plan was based on forcing our competitor to carry our products !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we've found that mcdonald's consistently sells their 'big mac' cheeseburgers in their branded restaurants.
this prevents potential customers of burger and wendy's from purchasing alternative burgers, such as the whopper with cheese and the whatever wendy's sells.
the united states government has determined that if mcdonald's begins to sell wendy's and burger king cheeseburgers alongside the big mac, a pending antitrust suit against mcdonald's will be dropped.
mcdonald's has decided to stop selling the big mac completely, which is totally unfair, because our entire business plan was based on forcing our competitor to carry our products!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712675</id>
	<title>Re:Better Experience for European Users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While upgrading is convenient, won't this actually give European users a better start with Windows 7? Windows is always better when it's clean and recently installed.</p></div><p>Perhaps Microsoft's hope is that EU users will simply grab the upgrade from bittorrent in the states to save themselves the hassle and in the process get IE, helping to keep it ubiquitous.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While upgrading is convenient , wo n't this actually give European users a better start with Windows 7 ?
Windows is always better when it 's clean and recently installed.Perhaps Microsoft 's hope is that EU users will simply grab the upgrade from bittorrent in the states to save themselves the hassle and in the process get IE , helping to keep it ubiquitous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While upgrading is convenient, won't this actually give European users a better start with Windows 7?
Windows is always better when it's clean and recently installed.Perhaps Microsoft's hope is that EU users will simply grab the upgrade from bittorrent in the states to save themselves the hassle and in the process get IE, helping to keep it ubiquitous.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712699</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS. Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS? A software company should be able to include whatever they want, and if people don't like it then either don't buy it or stop complaining.<ul>
<li>
Sorry bud, you are quite wrong. It is illegal (in the US at least) for Microsoft because they had a (legal) monopoly in the operating system space and attempted to use this to attain a monopoly in the web browser space (illegal in US to use one monopoly to gain another). Other companies don't have the same monopoly so are not subject to the same restrictions. While Europe may not have the exact same law they do have competition regulators to ensure competition remains in the market, so are sensitive so similar extensions of monopoly into other domains resulting in reduced customer choice.</li><li>
Incidentally the default deployment of IE has retarded the progress of the web. This of course was Microsoft's plan all along, they want you to have a much better experience on their desktop than the web and do everything they can, legitimate or not, to ensure this. Fortunately some competition has emerged while Microsoft were asleep and the web and browsers are starting to make progress again (to everyone's benefit, even Microsoft's).
</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS .
Why is n't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS ?
A software company should be able to include whatever they want , and if people do n't like it then either do n't buy it or stop complaining .
Sorry bud , you are quite wrong .
It is illegal ( in the US at least ) for Microsoft because they had a ( legal ) monopoly in the operating system space and attempted to use this to attain a monopoly in the web browser space ( illegal in US to use one monopoly to gain another ) .
Other companies do n't have the same monopoly so are not subject to the same restrictions .
While Europe may not have the exact same law they do have competition regulators to ensure competition remains in the market , so are sensitive so similar extensions of monopoly into other domains resulting in reduced customer choice .
Incidentally the default deployment of IE has retarded the progress of the web .
This of course was Microsoft 's plan all along , they want you to have a much better experience on their desktop than the web and do everything they can , legitimate or not , to ensure this .
Fortunately some competition has emerged while Microsoft were asleep and the web and browsers are starting to make progress again ( to everyone 's benefit , even Microsoft 's ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS.
Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS?
A software company should be able to include whatever they want, and if people don't like it then either don't buy it or stop complaining.
Sorry bud, you are quite wrong.
It is illegal (in the US at least) for Microsoft because they had a (legal) monopoly in the operating system space and attempted to use this to attain a monopoly in the web browser space (illegal in US to use one monopoly to gain another).
Other companies don't have the same monopoly so are not subject to the same restrictions.
While Europe may not have the exact same law they do have competition regulators to ensure competition remains in the market, so are sensitive so similar extensions of monopoly into other domains resulting in reduced customer choice.
Incidentally the default deployment of IE has retarded the progress of the web.
This of course was Microsoft's plan all along, they want you to have a much better experience on their desktop than the web and do everything they can, legitimate or not, to ensure this.
Fortunately some competition has emerged while Microsoft were asleep and the web and browsers are starting to make progress again (to everyone's benefit, even Microsoft's).
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713033</id>
	<title>Monopolies get special treatment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247684100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Monopolies get special treatment as far as the law is concerned, and for good reason.

</p><p>Microsoft, if given freedom to trade as it pleases, is in a position to stifle competition by making interoperability impossible and by not allowing competitor's software to work on its systems.  This is great for Microsoft shareholders in the short to medium term, but it is terrible for society as a whole.  That is why anti-competitive practices are regulated and prosecuted, especially when it comes to large monopolistic corporations.

</p><p>As a side note, I believe anti-competitive behaviour is bad for shareholders in the long term too.  It is no guarantee against failure, but more likely when a monopoly really doesn't innovate its products and services, then the inevitable failure will come along in a catastrophic way.  Also, shareholders being members of society should want progression for society as a whole, not just a progression of their net worth relative to everyone else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Monopolies get special treatment as far as the law is concerned , and for good reason .
Microsoft , if given freedom to trade as it pleases , is in a position to stifle competition by making interoperability impossible and by not allowing competitor 's software to work on its systems .
This is great for Microsoft shareholders in the short to medium term , but it is terrible for society as a whole .
That is why anti-competitive practices are regulated and prosecuted , especially when it comes to large monopolistic corporations .
As a side note , I believe anti-competitive behaviour is bad for shareholders in the long term too .
It is no guarantee against failure , but more likely when a monopoly really does n't innovate its products and services , then the inevitable failure will come along in a catastrophic way .
Also , shareholders being members of society should want progression for society as a whole , not just a progression of their net worth relative to everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Monopolies get special treatment as far as the law is concerned, and for good reason.
Microsoft, if given freedom to trade as it pleases, is in a position to stifle competition by making interoperability impossible and by not allowing competitor's software to work on its systems.
This is great for Microsoft shareholders in the short to medium term, but it is terrible for society as a whole.
That is why anti-competitive practices are regulated and prosecuted, especially when it comes to large monopolistic corporations.
As a side note, I believe anti-competitive behaviour is bad for shareholders in the long term too.
It is no guarantee against failure, but more likely when a monopoly really doesn't innovate its products and services, then the inevitable failure will come along in a catastrophic way.
Also, shareholders being members of society should want progression for society as a whole, not just a progression of their net worth relative to everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713363</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1247687460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime</p></div></blockquote><p>Isn't this like asking the old phrase: when did you stop beating your wife? And another one comes to mind: guilty until proven otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>have n't " told " MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crimeIs n't this like asking the old phrase : when did you stop beating your wife ?
And another one comes to mind : guilty until proven otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crimeIsn't this like asking the old phrase: when did you stop beating your wife?
And another one comes to mind: guilty until proven otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713281</id>
	<title>Re:If you have to do a clean install anyway...</title>
	<author>tg123</author>
	<datestamp>1247686320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X?</p></div><p>FUCK NO !!!</p><p>NEVER EVER UPGRADE MAC OS X.</p><p><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-9806005-37.html" title="cnet.com" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-9806005-37.html</a> [cnet.com]</p><p>BACKUP - backup  then backup again.<br>clean install new version of mac os x<br>then use transition assistant.</p><p>Christ don't give me nightmares.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X ? FUCK NO ! !
! NEVER EVER UPGRADE MAC OS X.http : //news.cnet.com/8301-13579 \ _3-9806005-37.html [ cnet.com ] BACKUP - backup then backup again.clean install new version of mac os xthen use transition assistant.Christ do n't give me nightmares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X?FUCK NO !!
!NEVER EVER UPGRADE MAC OS X.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579\_3-9806005-37.html [cnet.com]BACKUP - backup  then backup again.clean install new version of mac os xthen use transition assistant.Christ don't give me nightmares.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714235</id>
	<title>Re:Removing IE</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1247740980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's to leaverage IE onto Vista systems. If "E" ("European Edition" - No IE) is clean install only, then people won't buy "E". It's a marketing ploy to keep IE as top dog. They <b>want</b> people to complain about the internet being broken.<br> <br>It's actually quite ingenious.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's to leaverage IE onto Vista systems .
If " E " ( " European Edition " - No IE ) is clean install only , then people wo n't buy " E " .
It 's a marketing ploy to keep IE as top dog .
They want people to complain about the internet being broken .
It 's actually quite ingenious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's to leaverage IE onto Vista systems.
If "E" ("European Edition" - No IE) is clean install only, then people won't buy "E".
It's a marketing ploy to keep IE as top dog.
They want people to complain about the internet being broken.
It's actually quite ingenious.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191</id>
	<title>if it was me</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people's 3rd party software in my software product, I'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code.  That's ridiculous.  If you take it out of this context and apply it as a rule in general, it's insane.  The worst part is, if they're installing Windows 7 and see Firefox and Opera and let's say 10 other really, really crappier browsers, they'd appear to be official Microsoft options.  That means they'd get supports calls when suddenly pages look wrong in Firefox or Opera is crashing, etc.  This is all a nightmare no matter how they go about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people 's 3rd party software in my software product , I 'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code .
That 's ridiculous .
If you take it out of this context and apply it as a rule in general , it 's insane .
The worst part is , if they 're installing Windows 7 and see Firefox and Opera and let 's say 10 other really , really crappier browsers , they 'd appear to be official Microsoft options .
That means they 'd get supports calls when suddenly pages look wrong in Firefox or Opera is crashing , etc .
This is all a nightmare no matter how they go about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people's 3rd party software in my software product, I'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code.
That's ridiculous.
If you take it out of this context and apply it as a rule in general, it's insane.
The worst part is, if they're installing Windows 7 and see Firefox and Opera and let's say 10 other really, really crappier browsers, they'd appear to be official Microsoft options.
That means they'd get supports calls when suddenly pages look wrong in Firefox or Opera is crashing, etc.
This is all a nightmare no matter how they go about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715679</id>
	<title>Re:side effects</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1247754540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup, I'm in a lab in France with 300 researchers and today we discussed the possibility that the next purchasing campaign would be Linux (Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) only. People would need an exemption for any other kind of OS. And exemptions need to be \_justified\_. Made my day.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , I 'm in a lab in France with 300 researchers and today we discussed the possibility that the next purchasing campaign would be Linux ( Ubuntu and Scientific Linux ) only .
People would need an exemption for any other kind of OS .
And exemptions need to be \ _justified \ _ .
Made my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, I'm in a lab in France with 300 researchers and today we discussed the possibility that the next purchasing campaign would be Linux (Ubuntu and Scientific Linux) only.
People would need an exemption for any other kind of OS.
And exemptions need to be \_justified\_.
Made my day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713875</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718225</id>
	<title>Re:Petulance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247764620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>no. fortune 500 companies are run by money, not petulance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>no .
fortune 500 companies are run by money , not petulance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no.
fortune 500 companies are run by money, not petulance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720425</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1247772540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime</p></div><p>Isn't this like asking the old phrase: when did you stop beating your wife?</p></div><p>Not really, no. That would be an implicit statement in a question. The EU just made a statement and asked MS if they wanted to comment on it.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And another one comes to mind: guilty until proven otherwise.</p></div><p>MS can go to court and defend themselves if they are unwilling to admit their guilt, but it is a pretty open and shut case and MS recognizes that. MS has declined to even comment to the EU in their own defense so the EU is going forward with prosecution. It works a little different than individual in court though, the EU commission can put forward a claim of MS's guilt and issue punishment and remedy and then MS has the choice of if they want to take it to the judiciary as they did in the last case.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>have n't " told " MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crimeIs n't this like asking the old phrase : when did you stop beating your wife ? Not really , no .
That would be an implicit statement in a question .
The EU just made a statement and asked MS if they wanted to comment on it.And another one comes to mind : guilty until proven otherwise.MS can go to court and defend themselves if they are unwilling to admit their guilt , but it is a pretty open and shut case and MS recognizes that .
MS has declined to even comment to the EU in their own defense so the EU is going forward with prosecution .
It works a little different than individual in court though , the EU commission can put forward a claim of MS 's guilt and issue punishment and remedy and then MS has the choice of if they want to take it to the judiciary as they did in the last case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crimeIsn't this like asking the old phrase: when did you stop beating your wife?Not really, no.
That would be an implicit statement in a question.
The EU just made a statement and asked MS if they wanted to comment on it.And another one comes to mind: guilty until proven otherwise.MS can go to court and defend themselves if they are unwilling to admit their guilt, but it is a pretty open and shut case and MS recognizes that.
MS has declined to even comment to the EU in their own defense so the EU is going forward with prosecution.
It works a little different than individual in court though, the EU commission can put forward a claim of MS's guilt and issue punishment and remedy and then MS has the choice of if they want to take it to the judiciary as they did in the last case.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713363</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712591</id>
	<title>Re:Bureaucracy cannot fix monopoly</title>
	<author>momerath2003</author>
	<datestamp>1247680320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm, since when can one be a citizen of the EU?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , since when can one be a citizen of the EU ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, since when can one be a citizen of the EU?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</id>
	<title>Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247679960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why would Microsoft cripple it this way? Just to try and point fingers at the European Union? Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.</p></div><p>Actually the EU has not ordered MS to take any specific action. They do seem to favor multiple browsers installed by default as a remedy, but haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime and are looking into it. MS's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy, but the EU basically told them they weren't dropping the case and were going to investigate and determine the most effective remedy regardless of what MS does at this point.</p><p>Assuming all the above premises hold, it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that won't install IE. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Microsoft cripple it this way ?
Just to try and point fingers at the European Union ?
Because the EU did n't tell them to remove IE , they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.Actually the EU has not ordered MS to take any specific action .
They do seem to favor multiple browsers installed by default as a remedy , but have n't " told " MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime and are looking into it .
MS 's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy , but the EU basically told them they were n't dropping the case and were going to investigate and determine the most effective remedy regardless of what MS does at this point.Assuming all the above premises hold , it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that wo n't install IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Microsoft cripple it this way?
Just to try and point fingers at the European Union?
Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.Actually the EU has not ordered MS to take any specific action.
They do seem to favor multiple browsers installed by default as a remedy, but haven't "told" MS anything other than that they think MS is committing a crime and are looking into it.
MS's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy, but the EU basically told them they weren't dropping the case and were going to investigate and determine the most effective remedy regardless of what MS does at this point.Assuming all the above premises hold, it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that won't install IE. 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717941</id>
	<title>Re:if it was me</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247763660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE is no longer dominant. Between Opera, Safari, Chrome and Firefox, there are enough people using other platforms that web designers would be fools to only support IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE is no longer dominant .
Between Opera , Safari , Chrome and Firefox , there are enough people using other platforms that web designers would be fools to only support IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE is no longer dominant.
Between Opera, Safari, Chrome and Firefox, there are enough people using other platforms that web designers would be fools to only support IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714989</id>
	<title>Re:if it was me</title>
	<author>idamaybrown</author>
	<datestamp>1247750100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They need to create a version of Vista with the browser select menu just for EU and just sell that - while the rest of the world gets Windows 7.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They need to create a version of Vista with the browser select menu just for EU and just sell that - while the rest of the world gets Windows 7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They need to create a version of Vista with the browser select menu just for EU and just sell that - while the rest of the world gets Windows 7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716395</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same way we used to before IE was part of Windows. Your ISP shipped you a little instruction manual telling you how to use command line FTP to download the installer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)<br> <br>
Kids these days...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same way we used to before IE was part of Windows .
Your ISP shipped you a little instruction manual telling you how to use command line FTP to download the installer ; ) Kids these days.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same way we used to before IE was part of Windows.
Your ISP shipped you a little instruction manual telling you how to use command line FTP to download the installer ;) 
Kids these days...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28724875</id>
	<title>Re:Monopolies get special treatment</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1247750580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; This is great for Microsoft shareholders in the short to medium term, but it is terrible for society as a whole</p><p>You are subtly wrong here.  Anti-trust laws are usually set up to protect *the consumer*, not *society*.  This may seem like a subtle distinction but it's quite important.   We are not trying engineer a better world through anti-trust legislation.   They do not care about the collective, only the individual.  If society ends up the worse for the individual consumer winning out then so be it.  They don't care, for example, whether the world ends up following web standards or not.   That's an ideological nicety.  If consumers in general are better served by everyone following Microsoft's perverted implementations then anti-trust law is fine with that.  And I think a lot of people will agree this is actually the way it should be - the last thing we need is a bunch of people in anti-trust courts deciding how the world should be.</p><p>So what is my point?   The only question that should matter is whether *consumers* - ie: people actually buying computers - are hurt or helped by Microsoft including a browser.   In my opinion:  all the users of Windows lose out because they are put through the considerable inconvenience of receiving an almost non-functional computer with a fresh install of windows (a computer without a browser in this day and age being nearly useless).   The users of other OSes?  They gain very little if anything.      There is plenty of competition in the browser "market" now.  The consumer has numerous choices and almost no web sites depend on IE any more.  On balance, this move by the EU is anti-consumer and makes a complete mockery of the whole purpose of anti-trust legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; This is great for Microsoft shareholders in the short to medium term , but it is terrible for society as a wholeYou are subtly wrong here .
Anti-trust laws are usually set up to protect * the consumer * , not * society * .
This may seem like a subtle distinction but it 's quite important .
We are not trying engineer a better world through anti-trust legislation .
They do not care about the collective , only the individual .
If society ends up the worse for the individual consumer winning out then so be it .
They do n't care , for example , whether the world ends up following web standards or not .
That 's an ideological nicety .
If consumers in general are better served by everyone following Microsoft 's perverted implementations then anti-trust law is fine with that .
And I think a lot of people will agree this is actually the way it should be - the last thing we need is a bunch of people in anti-trust courts deciding how the world should be.So what is my point ?
The only question that should matter is whether * consumers * - ie : people actually buying computers - are hurt or helped by Microsoft including a browser .
In my opinion : all the users of Windows lose out because they are put through the considerable inconvenience of receiving an almost non-functional computer with a fresh install of windows ( a computer without a browser in this day and age being nearly useless ) .
The users of other OSes ?
They gain very little if anything .
There is plenty of competition in the browser " market " now .
The consumer has numerous choices and almost no web sites depend on IE any more .
On balance , this move by the EU is anti-consumer and makes a complete mockery of the whole purpose of anti-trust legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; This is great for Microsoft shareholders in the short to medium term, but it is terrible for society as a wholeYou are subtly wrong here.
Anti-trust laws are usually set up to protect *the consumer*, not *society*.
This may seem like a subtle distinction but it's quite important.
We are not trying engineer a better world through anti-trust legislation.
They do not care about the collective, only the individual.
If society ends up the worse for the individual consumer winning out then so be it.
They don't care, for example, whether the world ends up following web standards or not.
That's an ideological nicety.
If consumers in general are better served by everyone following Microsoft's perverted implementations then anti-trust law is fine with that.
And I think a lot of people will agree this is actually the way it should be - the last thing we need is a bunch of people in anti-trust courts deciding how the world should be.So what is my point?
The only question that should matter is whether *consumers* - ie: people actually buying computers - are hurt or helped by Microsoft including a browser.
In my opinion:  all the users of Windows lose out because they are put through the considerable inconvenience of receiving an almost non-functional computer with a fresh install of windows (a computer without a browser in this day and age being nearly useless).
The users of other OSes?
They gain very little if anything.
There is plenty of competition in the browser "market" now.
The consumer has numerous choices and almost no web sites depend on IE any more.
On balance, this move by the EU is anti-consumer and makes a complete mockery of the whole purpose of anti-trust legislation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712805</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1247681940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS. Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS?</p></div><p>Because Apple is not convicted of abusing monopoly powers to control a market.</p><p>Next strawman, please. This one is getting old.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor, I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off by making things as hard as possible for them as a result of their stupid decision.</p></div><p>It's generally a very bad idea to piss off the people who can confiscate considerable parts of your property. The EU is a <b>larger</b> market than the US. Telling the EU to "fuck off" is the dumbest business decision a multinational corporation could possibly make.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS .
Why is n't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS ? Because Apple is not convicted of abusing monopoly powers to control a market.Next strawman , please .
This one is getting old.If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor , I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off by making things as hard as possible for them as a result of their stupid decision.It 's generally a very bad idea to piss off the people who can confiscate considerable parts of your property .
The EU is a larger market than the US .
Telling the EU to " fuck off " is the dumbest business decision a multinational corporation could possibly make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS.
Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS?Because Apple is not convicted of abusing monopoly powers to control a market.Next strawman, please.
This one is getting old.If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor, I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off by making things as hard as possible for them as a result of their stupid decision.It's generally a very bad idea to piss off the people who can confiscate considerable parts of your property.
The EU is a larger market than the US.
Telling the EU to "fuck off" is the dumbest business decision a multinational corporation could possibly make.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716663</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247758860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lynx?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lynx ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lynx?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714427</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247743500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>how do I go and download FireFox?</p></div><p>ftp.exe ftp.mozilla.org ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>how do I go and download FireFox ? ftp.exe ftp.mozilla.org ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do I go and download FireFox?ftp.exe ftp.mozilla.org ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>sympathy3k21</author>
	<datestamp>1247678040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>EXACTLY. You'd have to be seriously dumb to "upgrade" a Windows box. I have never once seen this go well. Between Vista and 7 maybe it will be better because they're so alike, but I doubt it. I don't see the big deal with upgrading anyway. What's the point? So you can save 5 minutes backing up your stuff? (assuming that like much of the general buffoonery you don't have it already backed up) It takes about 10-15 minutes to install Vista from start to finish on a blank, modern machine. Judging from the totally inexplicable timetables involved in Microsoft's Windows Update, it probably takes ten times as long to perform an "upgrade." Even on a Linux system like Debian with a good package manager you will have some slight inconsistencies between releases that can foul things up if you perform a straight dist-upgrade. I can only imagine the things that go on behind the scenes in a Windows upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>EXACTLY .
You 'd have to be seriously dumb to " upgrade " a Windows box .
I have never once seen this go well .
Between Vista and 7 maybe it will be better because they 're so alike , but I doubt it .
I do n't see the big deal with upgrading anyway .
What 's the point ?
So you can save 5 minutes backing up your stuff ?
( assuming that like much of the general buffoonery you do n't have it already backed up ) It takes about 10-15 minutes to install Vista from start to finish on a blank , modern machine .
Judging from the totally inexplicable timetables involved in Microsoft 's Windows Update , it probably takes ten times as long to perform an " upgrade .
" Even on a Linux system like Debian with a good package manager you will have some slight inconsistencies between releases that can foul things up if you perform a straight dist-upgrade .
I can only imagine the things that go on behind the scenes in a Windows upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EXACTLY.
You'd have to be seriously dumb to "upgrade" a Windows box.
I have never once seen this go well.
Between Vista and 7 maybe it will be better because they're so alike, but I doubt it.
I don't see the big deal with upgrading anyway.
What's the point?
So you can save 5 minutes backing up your stuff?
(assuming that like much of the general buffoonery you don't have it already backed up) It takes about 10-15 minutes to install Vista from start to finish on a blank, modern machine.
Judging from the totally inexplicable timetables involved in Microsoft's Windows Update, it probably takes ten times as long to perform an "upgrade.
" Even on a Linux system like Debian with a good package manager you will have some slight inconsistencies between releases that can foul things up if you perform a straight dist-upgrade.
I can only imagine the things that go on behind the scenes in a Windows upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714081</id>
	<title>Re:Bureaucracy cannot fix monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247738820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is what happens when lawyers write software. Also, the people in the EU are getting what they deserve and it's a crying shame that they can just pirate it or use an alternative, they should be forced to eat their own dog food.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is what happens when lawyers write software .
Also , the people in the EU are getting what they deserve and it 's a crying shame that they can just pirate it or use an alternative , they should be forced to eat their own dog food .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is what happens when lawyers write software.
Also, the people in the EU are getting what they deserve and it's a crying shame that they can just pirate it or use an alternative, they should be forced to eat their own dog food.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714331</id>
	<title>response from the EU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247742180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft might be playing with fire in this case. Restricting the Windows 7 in Europe, just because they are annoyed by the decisions of the European Commission, might trigger some European governments to start sponsoring more aggressively alternative OSs to Windows.</p><p>Nowadays, with Linux and the Open Source community it would be easy for some of them to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft might be playing with fire in this case .
Restricting the Windows 7 in Europe , just because they are annoyed by the decisions of the European Commission , might trigger some European governments to start sponsoring more aggressively alternative OSs to Windows.Nowadays , with Linux and the Open Source community it would be easy for some of them to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft might be playing with fire in this case.
Restricting the Windows 7 in Europe, just because they are annoyed by the decisions of the European Commission, might trigger some European governments to start sponsoring more aggressively alternative OSs to Windows.Nowadays, with Linux and the Open Source community it would be easy for some of them to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713981</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1247737860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is this modded as insightful?  Do some internet research instead of parrotting the same old shite that's been posted on here endlessly and you might see why Microsoft are treated the way they are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is this modded as insightful ?
Do some internet research instead of parrotting the same old shite that 's been posted on here endlessly and you might see why Microsoft are treated the way they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is this modded as insightful?
Do some internet research instead of parrotting the same old shite that's been posted on here endlessly and you might see why Microsoft are treated the way they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714207</id>
	<title>Re:"Only" told them to bundle other browsers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247740560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Serves em right - considering they're in this only because of what they did (tell OEMs to no ship alternatives, all the headaches IE6 caused and still does, the absurd reasoning that IE is required for windows etc. etc.).

Yes the EU wants them to do some rather impossible and stupid stuff but considering what Microsofts original action has caused I think its only fair to treat em like the bunch of arrogant thieves they are.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Serves em right - considering they 're in this only because of what they did ( tell OEMs to no ship alternatives , all the headaches IE6 caused and still does , the absurd reasoning that IE is required for windows etc .
etc. ) . Yes the EU wants them to do some rather impossible and stupid stuff but considering what Microsofts original action has caused I think its only fair to treat em like the bunch of arrogant thieves they are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Serves em right - considering they're in this only because of what they did (tell OEMs to no ship alternatives, all the headaches IE6 caused and still does, the absurd reasoning that IE is required for windows etc.
etc.).

Yes the EU wants them to do some rather impossible and stupid stuff but considering what Microsofts original action has caused I think its only fair to treat em like the bunch of arrogant thieves they are.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722563</id>
	<title>Re:Come on people</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1247737860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Now the EU won't accept this. They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid. The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).</p></div><p>What makes you think stopping the commission of a crime is enough to get away from all the penalties and remedies for having committed it in the first place? The EU commission is empowered to do more than stop crime, they also punish crime and do what is necessary to fix the damage caused by the crime. The law is absolutely in the EU commission's favor on this. Pulling the knife out of your victim doesn't mean you don't have to pay the hospital bills and spend time in prison.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now the EU wo n't accept this .
They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid .
The question is if the law supports them , which I am not sure it will ( I think EU will lose , but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things ) .What makes you think stopping the commission of a crime is enough to get away from all the penalties and remedies for having committed it in the first place ?
The EU commission is empowered to do more than stop crime , they also punish crime and do what is necessary to fix the damage caused by the crime .
The law is absolutely in the EU commission 's favor on this .
Pulling the knife out of your victim does n't mean you do n't have to pay the hospital bills and spend time in prison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now the EU won't accept this.
They will still go after Microsoft because they are not stupid.
The question is if the law supports them, which I am not sure it will (I think EU will lose, but who knows the politcal pressure behind the scenes can do many magical things).What makes you think stopping the commission of a crime is enough to get away from all the penalties and remedies for having committed it in the first place?
The EU commission is empowered to do more than stop crime, they also punish crime and do what is necessary to fix the damage caused by the crime.
The law is absolutely in the EU commission's favor on this.
Pulling the knife out of your victim doesn't mean you don't have to pay the hospital bills and spend time in prison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712791</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Pig Hogger</author>
	<datestamp>1247681760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>You don't have to reinstall every year. My main rig has been running the same, non-reinstalled copy of XP for over 3 years. It's fast and stable.</em> </p></div>
</blockquote><p>Heh. 2 months ago, I retired my main workstation, a Win2000 box that has been running since 2001 doing software development, CAD and whatnot. I never had needed to reinstall the software in all that time.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to reinstall every year .
My main rig has been running the same , non-reinstalled copy of XP for over 3 years .
It 's fast and stable .
Heh. 2 months ago , I retired my main workstation , a Win2000 box that has been running since 2001 doing software development , CAD and whatnot .
I never had needed to reinstall the software in all that time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You don't have to reinstall every year.
My main rig has been running the same, non-reinstalled copy of XP for over 3 years.
It's fast and stable.
Heh. 2 months ago, I retired my main workstation, a Win2000 box that has been running since 2001 doing software development, CAD and whatnot.
I never had needed to reinstall the software in all that time.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28727393</id>
	<title>What about liability?</title>
	<author>harryjohnston</author>
	<datestamp>1247828640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So if the EU tells Microsoft they have to include third party code in Windows, and the third party code causes Windows to malfunction, who is going to compensate Microsoft for costs incurred, loss of goodwill, and so on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if the EU tells Microsoft they have to include third party code in Windows , and the third party code causes Windows to malfunction , who is going to compensate Microsoft for costs incurred , loss of goodwill , and so on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if the EU tells Microsoft they have to include third party code in Windows, and the third party code causes Windows to malfunction, who is going to compensate Microsoft for costs incurred, loss of goodwill, and so on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712471</id>
	<title>unclear for outside EU as well</title>
	<author>postmortem</author>
	<datestamp>1247679060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still it is not clear how clean installation using update copy of windows 7 can be achieved. Microsoft was quick to offer pre-order copies of Windows 7 upgrade without officially explaining what are the ways to perform upgrade. The issue is in validation of previous version of Windows. Some believe that previous version of Windows has to be installed and activated before performing update which is ridiculous in long run. In other words, it seems that EU people might have to install vista first, then Windows 7.</p><p>What happened is that people need to research how they can perform upgrade, but there's still no official word for it.</p><p>This doesn't sound like they learned all they could from Vista debacle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still it is not clear how clean installation using update copy of windows 7 can be achieved .
Microsoft was quick to offer pre-order copies of Windows 7 upgrade without officially explaining what are the ways to perform upgrade .
The issue is in validation of previous version of Windows .
Some believe that previous version of Windows has to be installed and activated before performing update which is ridiculous in long run .
In other words , it seems that EU people might have to install vista first , then Windows 7.What happened is that people need to research how they can perform upgrade , but there 's still no official word for it.This does n't sound like they learned all they could from Vista debacle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still it is not clear how clean installation using update copy of windows 7 can be achieved.
Microsoft was quick to offer pre-order copies of Windows 7 upgrade without officially explaining what are the ways to perform upgrade.
The issue is in validation of previous version of Windows.
Some believe that previous version of Windows has to be installed and activated before performing update which is ridiculous in long run.
In other words, it seems that EU people might have to install vista first, then Windows 7.What happened is that people need to research how they can perform upgrade, but there's still no official word for it.This doesn't sound like they learned all they could from Vista debacle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715373</id>
	<title>Of course they can.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247752620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But they are carefully side stepping the issue, until they get tired of nonsensical attempts of compliance.</p><p>If MS keeps doing its stunts the regulators are going to go mental and may take dramatic actions, as they have done with other companies or in mergers and acquisitions...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But they are carefully side stepping the issue , until they get tired of nonsensical attempts of compliance.If MS keeps doing its stunts the regulators are going to go mental and may take dramatic actions , as they have done with other companies or in mergers and acquisitions.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But they are carefully side stepping the issue, until they get tired of nonsensical attempts of compliance.If MS keeps doing its stunts the regulators are going to go mental and may take dramatic actions, as they have done with other companies or in mergers and acquisitions...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715239</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing that the Chinese government's recently abandoned Internet Filter software was aligned with the release of Windows 7.</p><p>After all, if MS can do a special version for the EU then why not a release for the PRC too - with the content filter pre-installed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that the Chinese government 's recently abandoned Internet Filter software was aligned with the release of Windows 7.After all , if MS can do a special version for the EU then why not a release for the PRC too - with the content filter pre-installed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that the Chinese government's recently abandoned Internet Filter software was aligned with the release of Windows 7.After all, if MS can do a special version for the EU then why not a release for the PRC too - with the content filter pre-installed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715785</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>wild\_berry</author>
	<datestamp>1247755080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You'll get modded down and I'll join the long line of people looking to correct you.  Sure, it's Microsoft's choice to bundle software with their OS.  But the issue raised is that Microsoft used their monopoly to skew the fair market for web browsers and gave incentives to people who didn't include other software in the PC's they built and sold.  So, as part of the billions of Euros in fines, Microsoft have to make sure that there is a level playing field for web browsers in the OS they sell in Europe.</p><blockquote><div><p>anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS</p></div></blockquote><p>And all the better for market share, improved quality of computer software and the world-wide web if people do have to choose a browser and can gain experience of what it's like without Microsoft's broken standards.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 'll get modded down and I 'll join the long line of people looking to correct you .
Sure , it 's Microsoft 's choice to bundle software with their OS .
But the issue raised is that Microsoft used their monopoly to skew the fair market for web browsers and gave incentives to people who did n't include other software in the PC 's they built and sold .
So , as part of the billions of Euros in fines , Microsoft have to make sure that there is a level playing field for web browsers in the OS they sell in Europe.anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer ... is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OSAnd all the better for market share , improved quality of computer software and the world-wide web if people do have to choose a browser and can gain experience of what it 's like without Microsoft 's broken standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You'll get modded down and I'll join the long line of people looking to correct you.
Sure, it's Microsoft's choice to bundle software with their OS.
But the issue raised is that Microsoft used their monopoly to skew the fair market for web browsers and gave incentives to people who didn't include other software in the PC's they built and sold.
So, as part of the billions of Euros in fines, Microsoft have to make sure that there is a level playing field for web browsers in the OS they sell in Europe.anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer ... is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OSAnd all the better for market share, improved quality of computer software and the world-wide web if people do have to choose a browser and can gain experience of what it's like without Microsoft's broken standards.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712405</id>
	<title>Summary BS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247678340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe they didn't plan on making upgrades possible from a version with IE in it to versions without it?  Maybe they didn't conspire to "cripple" it, but instead told you you'll have to clean-install a new OS that is not a strict superset?</p><p>They were investigating Microsoft for illegally tying IE to Windows.  So Microsoft stopped tying IE to Windows.  I don't see how that reaction is all that surprising (well, except among the set that thought Microsoft would take the most evil possible route in every case).</p><p>I have to say, I think forcing a person to click through another damn screen after every install for a choice of several browsers would also have been "crippling" in the same sense -- an annoying one-time event that most consumers won't even face in the first place because people rarely install or upgrade their OS in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe they did n't plan on making upgrades possible from a version with IE in it to versions without it ?
Maybe they did n't conspire to " cripple " it , but instead told you you 'll have to clean-install a new OS that is not a strict superset ? They were investigating Microsoft for illegally tying IE to Windows .
So Microsoft stopped tying IE to Windows .
I do n't see how that reaction is all that surprising ( well , except among the set that thought Microsoft would take the most evil possible route in every case ) .I have to say , I think forcing a person to click through another damn screen after every install for a choice of several browsers would also have been " crippling " in the same sense -- an annoying one-time event that most consumers wo n't even face in the first place because people rarely install or upgrade their OS in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe they didn't plan on making upgrades possible from a version with IE in it to versions without it?
Maybe they didn't conspire to "cripple" it, but instead told you you'll have to clean-install a new OS that is not a strict superset?They were investigating Microsoft for illegally tying IE to Windows.
So Microsoft stopped tying IE to Windows.
I don't see how that reaction is all that surprising (well, except among the set that thought Microsoft would take the most evil possible route in every case).I have to say, I think forcing a person to click through another damn screen after every install for a choice of several browsers would also have been "crippling" in the same sense -- an annoying one-time event that most consumers won't even face in the first place because people rarely install or upgrade their OS in the first place.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718781</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1247766480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're right, MS can't "pull out" of the EU.  They can however close all their sites in the EU except for a few small sales and marketing sites.  Really enough is enough - these tin pot bureaucrats are simply shaking down US companies to fill their own coffers.  And yes, a few billion dollars is a lot of money for a single EU regulatory commission to bring in.  I wonder... does that fine money go to pay their own salaries, fund their buildings, let them live high on the hog?  I'm kidding - of course it does.  And it brings in a good chunk of change to a region which is realizing it will fail under the weight of its own socialist policies in conjunction with population growth and demographic shifts.</p><p>Frankly - couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of assholes.  Have fun watching your socialist utopia crumble around you, but don't worry the US is moving in that direction too and it will happen here in the not too distant future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , MS ca n't " pull out " of the EU .
They can however close all their sites in the EU except for a few small sales and marketing sites .
Really enough is enough - these tin pot bureaucrats are simply shaking down US companies to fill their own coffers .
And yes , a few billion dollars is a lot of money for a single EU regulatory commission to bring in .
I wonder... does that fine money go to pay their own salaries , fund their buildings , let them live high on the hog ?
I 'm kidding - of course it does .
And it brings in a good chunk of change to a region which is realizing it will fail under the weight of its own socialist policies in conjunction with population growth and demographic shifts.Frankly - could n't happen to a bigger bunch of assholes .
Have fun watching your socialist utopia crumble around you , but do n't worry the US is moving in that direction too and it will happen here in the not too distant future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, MS can't "pull out" of the EU.
They can however close all their sites in the EU except for a few small sales and marketing sites.
Really enough is enough - these tin pot bureaucrats are simply shaking down US companies to fill their own coffers.
And yes, a few billion dollars is a lot of money for a single EU regulatory commission to bring in.
I wonder... does that fine money go to pay their own salaries, fund their buildings, let them live high on the hog?
I'm kidding - of course it does.
And it brings in a good chunk of change to a region which is realizing it will fail under the weight of its own socialist policies in conjunction with population growth and demographic shifts.Frankly - couldn't happen to a bigger bunch of assholes.
Have fun watching your socialist utopia crumble around you, but don't worry the US is moving in that direction too and it will happen here in the not too distant future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187</id>
	<title>"Only" told them to bundle other browsers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247685540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.</p></div><p>
Saying "only" doesn't make that statement any less absurd. How is the selection for these browsers to be made? Because you know the moment Microsoft announces they're to put "select few" browsers in Windows 7, everyone will want theirs in.<br> <br>

Opera says "top 5" browsers, but picking browsers by market share, in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony. Not to mention the magical number "5" comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share. If it was "top 3" they wouldn't even be in that list, depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit. Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users? <em>Please upgrade to a modern browser: Chrome, IE8, Firefox</em>. Opera's nowhere in that list. Should they sue YouTube?<br> <br>

What the EU commission wants from Microsoft is a solution that can't be carried out in any sensible manner. But maybe that's exactly what they want, have you seen what EU charges Microsoft for failing to abide? To paraphrase another euphemism, let's call it "surprise tax"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the EU did n't tell them to remove IE , they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup .
Saying " only " does n't make that statement any less absurd .
How is the selection for these browsers to be made ?
Because you know the moment Microsoft announces they 're to put " select few " browsers in Windows 7 , everyone will want theirs in .
Opera says " top 5 " browsers , but picking browsers by market share , in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony .
Not to mention the magical number " 5 " comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share .
If it was " top 3 " they would n't even be in that list , depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit .
Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users ?
Please upgrade to a modern browser : Chrome , IE8 , Firefox .
Opera 's nowhere in that list .
Should they sue YouTube ?
What the EU commission wants from Microsoft is a solution that ca n't be carried out in any sensible manner .
But maybe that 's exactly what they want , have you seen what EU charges Microsoft for failing to abide ?
To paraphrase another euphemism , let 's call it " surprise tax " ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the EU didn't tell them to remove IE, they only told them to offer other browsers to be installed during setup.
Saying "only" doesn't make that statement any less absurd.
How is the selection for these browsers to be made?
Because you know the moment Microsoft announces they're to put "select few" browsers in Windows 7, everyone will want theirs in.
Opera says "top 5" browsers, but picking browsers by market share, in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony.
Not to mention the magical number "5" comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share.
If it was "top 3" they wouldn't even be in that list, depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit.
Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users?
Please upgrade to a modern browser: Chrome, IE8, Firefox.
Opera's nowhere in that list.
Should they sue YouTube?
What the EU commission wants from Microsoft is a solution that can't be carried out in any sensible manner.
But maybe that's exactly what they want, have you seen what EU charges Microsoft for failing to abide?
To paraphrase another euphemism, let's call it "surprise tax" ;)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712495</id>
	<title>IE</title>
	<author>mrsteveman1</author>
	<datestamp>1247679300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Internet explorer deeply integrated in Vista? I remember all the claims that Internet explorer had been separated out for Vista specifically.........another lie? Or summary full of shit?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet explorer deeply integrated in Vista ?
I remember all the claims that Internet explorer had been separated out for Vista specifically.........another lie ?
Or summary full of shit ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internet explorer deeply integrated in Vista?
I remember all the claims that Internet explorer had been separated out for Vista specifically.........another lie?
Or summary full of shit?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714601</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at the subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247745720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because the cost of doing business there is higher; the EC is constantly fining them and bringing them to court. I mean in 2004 they were fined $794 million for including WMP in Windows, perhaps they're just getting ready for what the EC is going to fine them for including IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because the cost of doing business there is higher ; the EC is constantly fining them and bringing them to court .
I mean in 2004 they were fined $ 794 million for including WMP in Windows , perhaps they 're just getting ready for what the EC is going to fine them for including IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because the cost of doing business there is higher; the EC is constantly fining them and bringing them to court.
I mean in 2004 they were fined $794 million for including WMP in Windows, perhaps they're just getting ready for what the EC is going to fine them for including IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28725145</id>
	<title>Re:"Only" told them to bundle other browsers?</title>
	<author>Stan Vassilev</author>
	<datestamp>1247752860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The summary is misleading. The EU hasn't told Microsoft to do anything. They are still investigating but Microsoft decided to remove IE perhaps in the hope that the EU will be pressured into asking them to do that. But so far the EU has not asked them to do anything.</p></div><p>You are confusing the lack of legal verdict with whether they said anything or not. The position of the EU commission is quite clear, let me quote it for you:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The European Commission (EC) has reacted swiftly to Microsoft's intention to offer some versions of the upcoming Windows 7 operating system without Internet Explorer (IE). <br> <br>

"The Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers. Instead, Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all," the EC said in a statement. "Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less."<br> <br>

The Commission cited an alternative option of shipping Windows 7 with a choice of different web browsers presented through a 'ballot screen', from where users could choose and easily install their preferred browser.</p></div><p>Source (one of many): <a href="http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2244050/ec-reacts-ms-ie-plans" title="v3.co.uk">http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2244050/ec-reacts-ms-ie-plans</a> [v3.co.uk]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is misleading .
The EU has n't told Microsoft to do anything .
They are still investigating but Microsoft decided to remove IE perhaps in the hope that the EU will be pressured into asking them to do that .
But so far the EU has not asked them to do anything.You are confusing the lack of legal verdict with whether they said anything or not .
The position of the EU commission is quite clear , let me quote it for you : The European Commission ( EC ) has reacted swiftly to Microsoft 's intention to offer some versions of the upcoming Windows 7 operating system without Internet Explorer ( IE ) .
" The Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers .
Instead , Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all , " the EC said in a statement .
" Rather than more choice , Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less .
" The Commission cited an alternative option of shipping Windows 7 with a choice of different web browsers presented through a 'ballot screen ' , from where users could choose and easily install their preferred browser.Source ( one of many ) : http : //www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2244050/ec-reacts-ms-ie-plans [ v3.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is misleading.
The EU hasn't told Microsoft to do anything.
They are still investigating but Microsoft decided to remove IE perhaps in the hope that the EU will be pressured into asking them to do that.
But so far the EU has not asked them to do anything.You are confusing the lack of legal verdict with whether they said anything or not.
The position of the EU commission is quite clear, let me quote it for you:The European Commission (EC) has reacted swiftly to Microsoft's intention to offer some versions of the upcoming Windows 7 operating system without Internet Explorer (IE).
"The Commission had suggested to Microsoft that consumers be provided with a choice of web browsers.
Instead, Microsoft has apparently decided to supply retail consumers with a version of Windows without a web browser at all," the EC said in a statement.
"Rather than more choice, Microsoft seems to have chosen to provide less.
" 

The Commission cited an alternative option of shipping Windows 7 with a choice of different web browsers presented through a 'ballot screen', from where users could choose and easily install their preferred browser.Source (one of many): http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2244050/ec-reacts-ms-ie-plans [v3.co.uk]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715157</id>
	<title>Imagine if...</title>
	<author>happy\_place</author>
	<datestamp>1247751480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Imagine if the EU mandated that Google remove its browser from its new OS. The whole point of that OS is web accelleration. Meh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine if the EU mandated that Google remove its browser from its new OS .
The whole point of that OS is web accelleration .
Meh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine if the EU mandated that Google remove its browser from its new OS.
The whole point of that OS is web accelleration.
Meh.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</id>
	<title>Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247683620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>My what an ignorant jerk you are. The EU and the European market represent a huge share of Microsoft's profits, how likely do you think they are to screw with that? How stupid can you get?! If Microsoft wants to play here they have to follow our rules.<br><br>I'm so tired of hearing fools like you talk about how Microsoft should just "pull out" of Europe. When are you going to get it? They don't want to! They can't unless they want to lose markets all around the world! European international corporations would move to European Linux distributions (in all the countries they operate in around the world).<br><br>The EU asked them to include more options for browsers, do you even know how to read? They did not ask them to remove IE, but that's fine too. After all it's not a problem since manufacturers can add whatever they like OEM-style.<br><br>The EU is a massively powerful entity and Microsoft has no power to "lobby" their way out of this or any other issues unlike in the US. So you better get used to having your "American" corporations  "screwed" over by us Europeans! Don't worry, the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way!</htmltext>
<tokenext>My what an ignorant jerk you are .
The EU and the European market represent a huge share of Microsoft 's profits , how likely do you think they are to screw with that ?
How stupid can you get ? !
If Microsoft wants to play here they have to follow our rules.I 'm so tired of hearing fools like you talk about how Microsoft should just " pull out " of Europe .
When are you going to get it ?
They do n't want to !
They ca n't unless they want to lose markets all around the world !
European international corporations would move to European Linux distributions ( in all the countries they operate in around the world ) .The EU asked them to include more options for browsers , do you even know how to read ?
They did not ask them to remove IE , but that 's fine too .
After all it 's not a problem since manufacturers can add whatever they like OEM-style.The EU is a massively powerful entity and Microsoft has no power to " lobby " their way out of this or any other issues unlike in the US .
So you better get used to having your " American " corporations " screwed " over by us Europeans !
Do n't worry , the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My what an ignorant jerk you are.
The EU and the European market represent a huge share of Microsoft's profits, how likely do you think they are to screw with that?
How stupid can you get?!
If Microsoft wants to play here they have to follow our rules.I'm so tired of hearing fools like you talk about how Microsoft should just "pull out" of Europe.
When are you going to get it?
They don't want to!
They can't unless they want to lose markets all around the world!
European international corporations would move to European Linux distributions (in all the countries they operate in around the world).The EU asked them to include more options for browsers, do you even know how to read?
They did not ask them to remove IE, but that's fine too.
After all it's not a problem since manufacturers can add whatever they like OEM-style.The EU is a massively powerful entity and Microsoft has no power to "lobby" their way out of this or any other issues unlike in the US.
So you better get used to having your "American" corporations  "screwed" over by us Europeans!
Don't worry, the EU screws European corporations exactly the same way!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722211</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1247736540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS?</p></div><p>Possibly the inclusion of other browsers by default and adding enforced adherence to Web standards, perhaps.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Isn't the complaint that IE is included in the OS, and that this is the problem?</p></div><p>No, that is wrong. The complaint is that MS has illegally undermined competition in the Web browser market. The mechanism by which they achieved this was by bundling. </p><p>As an analogy, suppose a person commits assault with a deadly weapon by stabbing you with a knife. Since they were arrested for stabbing is the most effective remedy for you, the criminal being forced to remove the knife? After all they were arrested for sticking the knife in you. If they pull it out and don't stick it back in, are you all better?</p><p>As in the analogy, MS has done serious and long term damage to the market. Even if they stop bundling IE, the damage done by their bundling it for so long continue in all the IE specific Web pages and applications. Even without MS's ongoing interference with them or bundling, OEMs have been given motivation to install IE as the default WEb browser, because of MS's past criminal behavior. Thus, the market is still undermined. A more effective remedy going forward provides incentive for Web developers to change the Web to conform to standards so all browsers can compete on even ground. One way to do that is to force IE to conform to standards going forward so it won't be able to work with broken pages either. Another way is forcing the inclusion of multiple browsers so that Web developers have incentive to target standards and can target standards not implemented in IE because they can be confident users will have a more advanced browser that will work.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Sure.. the end users in the E.U. are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. because they want a fucking browser!</p></div><p>Generally users don't choose an OS, they choose a computer which comes with both an OS and a browser. There is no reason to suspect that will change with a remedy from the EU, only that when users choose a computer the browser that comes along with it may not be IE or may be IE and several other browsers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>In other news, Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.</p></div><p>The only reason to bring that up is if you mistakenly think MS is guilty of bundling a browser and an OS, instead of undermining a market using a monopoly. Maybe if you took the time to understand what the crime was, your comments about how to remedy the effects of that crime would be more worthwhile.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS ? Possibly the inclusion of other browsers by default and adding enforced adherence to Web standards , perhaps.Is n't the complaint that IE is included in the OS , and that this is the problem ? No , that is wrong .
The complaint is that MS has illegally undermined competition in the Web browser market .
The mechanism by which they achieved this was by bundling .
As an analogy , suppose a person commits assault with a deadly weapon by stabbing you with a knife .
Since they were arrested for stabbing is the most effective remedy for you , the criminal being forced to remove the knife ?
After all they were arrested for sticking the knife in you .
If they pull it out and do n't stick it back in , are you all better ? As in the analogy , MS has done serious and long term damage to the market .
Even if they stop bundling IE , the damage done by their bundling it for so long continue in all the IE specific Web pages and applications .
Even without MS 's ongoing interference with them or bundling , OEMs have been given motivation to install IE as the default WEb browser , because of MS 's past criminal behavior .
Thus , the market is still undermined .
A more effective remedy going forward provides incentive for Web developers to change the Web to conform to standards so all browsers can compete on even ground .
One way to do that is to force IE to conform to standards going forward so it wo n't be able to work with broken pages either .
Another way is forcing the inclusion of multiple browsers so that Web developers have incentive to target standards and can target standards not implemented in IE because they can be confident users will have a more advanced browser that will work.Sure.. the end users in the E.U .
are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS .. because they want a fucking browser ! Generally users do n't choose an OS , they choose a computer which comes with both an OS and a browser .
There is no reason to suspect that will change with a remedy from the EU , only that when users choose a computer the browser that comes along with it may not be IE or may be IE and several other browsers.In other news , Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.The only reason to bring that up is if you mistakenly think MS is guilty of bundling a browser and an OS , instead of undermining a market using a monopoly .
Maybe if you took the time to understand what the crime was , your comments about how to remedy the effects of that crime would be more worthwhile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS?Possibly the inclusion of other browsers by default and adding enforced adherence to Web standards, perhaps.Isn't the complaint that IE is included in the OS, and that this is the problem?No, that is wrong.
The complaint is that MS has illegally undermined competition in the Web browser market.
The mechanism by which they achieved this was by bundling.
As an analogy, suppose a person commits assault with a deadly weapon by stabbing you with a knife.
Since they were arrested for stabbing is the most effective remedy for you, the criminal being forced to remove the knife?
After all they were arrested for sticking the knife in you.
If they pull it out and don't stick it back in, are you all better?As in the analogy, MS has done serious and long term damage to the market.
Even if they stop bundling IE, the damage done by their bundling it for so long continue in all the IE specific Web pages and applications.
Even without MS's ongoing interference with them or bundling, OEMs have been given motivation to install IE as the default WEb browser, because of MS's past criminal behavior.
Thus, the market is still undermined.
A more effective remedy going forward provides incentive for Web developers to change the Web to conform to standards so all browsers can compete on even ground.
One way to do that is to force IE to conform to standards going forward so it won't be able to work with broken pages either.
Another way is forcing the inclusion of multiple browsers so that Web developers have incentive to target standards and can target standards not implemented in IE because they can be confident users will have a more advanced browser that will work.Sure.. the end users in the E.U.
are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS .. because they want a fucking browser!Generally users don't choose an OS, they choose a computer which comes with both an OS and a browser.
There is no reason to suspect that will change with a remedy from the EU, only that when users choose a computer the browser that comes along with it may not be IE or may be IE and several other browsers.In other news, Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.The only reason to bring that up is if you mistakenly think MS is guilty of bundling a browser and an OS, instead of undermining a market using a monopoly.
Maybe if you took the time to understand what the crime was, your comments about how to remedy the effects of that crime would be more worthwhile.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714783</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717083</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247760300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was under the impression that most of us WANT Microsoft to get "screwed" by Europeans (or anybody, for that matter)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was under the impression that most of us WANT Microsoft to get " screwed " by Europeans ( or anybody , for that matter ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was under the impression that most of us WANT Microsoft to get "screwed" by Europeans (or anybody, for that matter)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713953</id>
	<title>Re:Bureaucracy cannot fix monopoly</title>
	<author>cyber-vandal</author>
	<datestamp>1247737620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The EU did not request this, Microsoft did it themselves to try and avoid stricter punishments.  By the way how else do you deal with lawbreakers than via the courts?  This isn't the EU being mean to a successful foreign company, this is a European court prosecuting a habitual criminal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EU did not request this , Microsoft did it themselves to try and avoid stricter punishments .
By the way how else do you deal with lawbreakers than via the courts ?
This is n't the EU being mean to a successful foreign company , this is a European court prosecuting a habitual criminal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EU did not request this, Microsoft did it themselves to try and avoid stricter punishments.
By the way how else do you deal with lawbreakers than via the courts?
This isn't the EU being mean to a successful foreign company, this is a European court prosecuting a habitual criminal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713457</id>
	<title>At least the fresh Win7</title>
	<author>Cur8or</author>
	<datestamp>1247774940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>installation will perform bearably well for a couple of days.
I recommend a fresh Windows install every 3 months.
This is the first time MS has recommended a fresh install as far as I know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>installation will perform bearably well for a couple of days .
I recommend a fresh Windows install every 3 months .
This is the first time MS has recommended a fresh install as far as I know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>installation will perform bearably well for a couple of days.
I recommend a fresh Windows install every 3 months.
This is the first time MS has recommended a fresh install as far as I know.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714649</id>
	<title>If I ran the shots at Microsoft</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247746440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd include an ungodly amount of the most obscure browsers there are. Anything I could get my hands on. Alphabetically, with a catagory on top "Microsoft Certified and Tested" which would include IE, IE and maybe even IE. Mozilla would be in the other category "Untested and possibly harmful to your system". (perhaps with warning pictures, like skulls, communist signs and other things).</p><p>Before flaming commences, I've used Firefox since version 0.9 or something, and this was posted in a Gentoo box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd include an ungodly amount of the most obscure browsers there are .
Anything I could get my hands on .
Alphabetically , with a catagory on top " Microsoft Certified and Tested " which would include IE , IE and maybe even IE .
Mozilla would be in the other category " Untested and possibly harmful to your system " .
( perhaps with warning pictures , like skulls , communist signs and other things ) .Before flaming commences , I 've used Firefox since version 0.9 or something , and this was posted in a Gentoo box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd include an ungodly amount of the most obscure browsers there are.
Anything I could get my hands on.
Alphabetically, with a catagory on top "Microsoft Certified and Tested" which would include IE, IE and maybe even IE.
Mozilla would be in the other category "Untested and possibly harmful to your system".
(perhaps with warning pictures, like skulls, communist signs and other things).Before flaming commences, I've used Firefox since version 0.9 or something, and this was posted in a Gentoo box.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715879</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ftp ftp.mozilla.org</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ftp ftp.mozilla.org</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ftp ftp.mozilla.org</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715391</id>
	<title>Well....</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247752740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you would do that, eventually you would lose.</p><p>If that is the prevailing attitude in MS's HQs I suggest they are playing a game they can't win.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you would do that , eventually you would lose.If that is the prevailing attitude in MS 's HQs I suggest they are playing a game they ca n't win .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you would do that, eventually you would lose.If that is the prevailing attitude in MS's HQs I suggest they are playing a game they can't win.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715335</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1247752380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do most people download IE? How do they download windows without an OS at all?

</p><p>Answer: They don't, the OEM takes care of it for them. If you're the kind of person who installs your own OS, then you can either buy the "Windows + IE" package, or buy the "Windows Only" package then take care of a browser yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do most people download IE ?
How do they download windows without an OS at all ?
Answer : They do n't , the OEM takes care of it for them .
If you 're the kind of person who installs your own OS , then you can either buy the " Windows + IE " package , or buy the " Windows Only " package then take care of a browser yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do most people download IE?
How do they download windows without an OS at all?
Answer: They don't, the OEM takes care of it for them.
If you're the kind of person who installs your own OS, then you can either buy the "Windows + IE" package, or buy the "Windows Only" package then take care of a browser yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713373</id>
	<title>Re:The last thing we need ...</title>
	<author>jim\_v2000</author>
	<datestamp>1247687580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>WHy the hell should a user have to download anything?  "Oh here, take this shitty, stripped web browser because the producers of a relatively obscure browser called Opera had a hissy fit in front of the EU."  IE7 and IE8 are great browsers...and I don't see why MS should be forced to stop shipping it just because some other companies decided to make their own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>WHy the hell should a user have to download anything ?
" Oh here , take this shitty , stripped web browser because the producers of a relatively obscure browser called Opera had a hissy fit in front of the EU .
" IE7 and IE8 are great browsers...and I do n't see why MS should be forced to stop shipping it just because some other companies decided to make their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WHy the hell should a user have to download anything?
"Oh here, take this shitty, stripped web browser because the producers of a relatively obscure browser called Opera had a hissy fit in front of the EU.
"  IE7 and IE8 are great browsers...and I don't see why MS should be forced to stop shipping it just because some other companies decided to make their own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465</id>
	<title>While we're at the subject</title>
	<author>fearlezz</author>
	<datestamp>1247775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why is the windows 7 price in europe going to be 150\% of the dollar-price in euro's (100 dollar -&gt; 150 euro). That's twice what americans pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why is the windows 7 price in europe going to be 150 \ % of the dollar-price in euro 's ( 100 dollar - &gt; 150 euro ) .
That 's twice what americans pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why is the windows 7 price in europe going to be 150\% of the dollar-price in euro's (100 dollar -&gt; 150 euro).
That's twice what americans pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713159</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>chogori</author>
	<datestamp>1247685240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Assuming all the above premises hold, it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that won't install IE. </p></div><p>Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is doing this out of lethargy?<br>
Mod me down for defending Microsoft here, but they are not stupid. This decision could make or lose billions of dollars. Yes, billions. I'm sure somebody in Microsoft has done the math, argued it from all angles, and there's a damn good reason why it is they way it is.<br> <br>
Your high horse clouds your judgement.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming all the above premises hold , it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that wo n't install IE .
Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is doing this out of lethargy ?
Mod me down for defending Microsoft here , but they are not stupid .
This decision could make or lose billions of dollars .
Yes , billions .
I 'm sure somebody in Microsoft has done the math , argued it from all angles , and there 's a damn good reason why it is they way it is .
Your high horse clouds your judgement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming all the above premises hold, it seems likely this is just MS being lazy and incompetent and not wanting to expend effort to write an upgrader for Europe that won't install IE.
Do you honestly believe that Microsoft is doing this out of lethargy?
Mod me down for defending Microsoft here, but they are not stupid.
This decision could make or lose billions of dollars.
Yes, billions.
I'm sure somebody in Microsoft has done the math, argued it from all angles, and there's a damn good reason why it is they way it is.
Your high horse clouds your judgement.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713053</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1247684220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; were going to investigate and determine the most<br>&gt; effective remedy regardless of what MS does at<br>&gt; this point.</p><p>Why should the EU get to decide what MS puts in its OS?</p><p>MS did the right thing.  Too bad the EU saw fit to punish all of its citizens by making them go dig up a browser somewhere.</p><p>I hope the put some buttons on the desktop that will go download the browser of choice.  But Even that can't be relied upon as ftp URLs change over time and Firefox and Opera are fairly difficult to download via FTP unless you know the exact URL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; were going to investigate and determine the most &gt; effective remedy regardless of what MS does at &gt; this point.Why should the EU get to decide what MS puts in its OS ? MS did the right thing .
Too bad the EU saw fit to punish all of its citizens by making them go dig up a browser somewhere.I hope the put some buttons on the desktop that will go download the browser of choice .
But Even that ca n't be relied upon as ftp URLs change over time and Firefox and Opera are fairly difficult to download via FTP unless you know the exact URL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; were going to investigate and determine the most&gt; effective remedy regardless of what MS does at&gt; this point.Why should the EU get to decide what MS puts in its OS?MS did the right thing.
Too bad the EU saw fit to punish all of its citizens by making them go dig up a browser somewhere.I hope the put some buttons on the desktop that will go download the browser of choice.
But Even that can't be relied upon as ftp URLs change over time and Firefox and Opera are fairly difficult to download via FTP unless you know the exact URL.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716233</id>
	<title>Re:Bureaucracy cannot fix monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247756940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Erm, since when can one be a citizen of the EU?</p></div><p>Every citizen of an EU member state is automatically an EU citizen. That makes them eligible e.g. to vote in EU elections.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm , since when can one be a citizen of the EU ? Every citizen of an EU member state is automatically an EU citizen .
That makes them eligible e.g .
to vote in EU elections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm, since when can one be a citizen of the EU?Every citizen of an EU member state is automatically an EU citizen.
That makes them eligible e.g.
to vote in EU elections.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717469</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>icannotthinkofaname</author>
	<datestamp>1247761920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also, well-programmed apps (World of Warcraft comes to mind) are actually self-contained: everything they need is in their own directory, so if you put them on D:, they'll run right of the bat after a reinstall. One can't help but wonder why all apps are not that way.</p></div><p>Because Windows programmers are just that - <i>Windows</i> programmers.  If they programmed self-containment into applications, they'd be cross-platform programmers,  Of course Windows programmers are going to take advantage of Windows-specific stuff like the Registry if it suits their purposes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , well-programmed apps ( World of Warcraft comes to mind ) are actually self-contained : everything they need is in their own directory , so if you put them on D : , they 'll run right of the bat after a reinstall .
One ca n't help but wonder why all apps are not that way.Because Windows programmers are just that - Windows programmers .
If they programmed self-containment into applications , they 'd be cross-platform programmers , Of course Windows programmers are going to take advantage of Windows-specific stuff like the Registry if it suits their purposes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, well-programmed apps (World of Warcraft comes to mind) are actually self-contained: everything they need is in their own directory, so if you put them on D:, they'll run right of the bat after a reinstall.
One can't help but wonder why all apps are not that way.Because Windows programmers are just that - Windows programmers.
If they programmed self-containment into applications, they'd be cross-platform programmers,  Of course Windows programmers are going to take advantage of Windows-specific stuff like the Registry if it suits their purposes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716971</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247759880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, why would a company want to have to deal with the hassle of incorporating the install of competitors' products into their own install process? It's just begging for problems to happen. It's stupid and it'd be stupid of the EU to try to force Microsoft to do so, but that's never stopped the EU before. It's easier to just not install IE or any other browser than deal with all the mess that providing for multiple competitors' browsers in the installation procedure would be. Besides, it's not like anyone will be buying that version anyway... just like XP-N, another stupid requirement of the EU, who couldn't seem to realize that no one would want an OS without some way to play music/media built into the system from install time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , why would a company want to have to deal with the hassle of incorporating the install of competitors ' products into their own install process ?
It 's just begging for problems to happen .
It 's stupid and it 'd be stupid of the EU to try to force Microsoft to do so , but that 's never stopped the EU before .
It 's easier to just not install IE or any other browser than deal with all the mess that providing for multiple competitors ' browsers in the installation procedure would be .
Besides , it 's not like anyone will be buying that version anyway... just like XP-N , another stupid requirement of the EU , who could n't seem to realize that no one would want an OS without some way to play music/media built into the system from install time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, why would a company want to have to deal with the hassle of incorporating the install of competitors' products into their own install process?
It's just begging for problems to happen.
It's stupid and it'd be stupid of the EU to try to force Microsoft to do so, but that's never stopped the EU before.
It's easier to just not install IE or any other browser than deal with all the mess that providing for multiple competitors' browsers in the installation procedure would be.
Besides, it's not like anyone will be buying that version anyway... just like XP-N, another stupid requirement of the EU, who couldn't seem to realize that no one would want an OS without some way to play music/media built into the system from install time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715707</id>
	<title>Re:if it was me</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1247754720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not insane at all. Microsoft used the ubiquitousness of one product to force people to use another. Internet Explorer is only the dominant browser because they artificially bundled it with Windows. They gave it away in effect to drive Netscape out of business. The EU clearly has more teeth to deal with the issue than the US and the case has been ongoing since 1993. The browser is only one of a catalogue of abuses MS have been found guilty with over networking, proprietary protocols, browsers and media players.
<p>
As to how they remedy the browser issue, that's their own problem. They could certainly have chosen a better way than crippling the European product like they did. I expect they believe that by inconveniencing customers there will be a backlash against the EU. This is just a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face and I expect it will worsen IE's browser share far more than if they just offer users the choice of picking which browser to install.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not insane at all .
Microsoft used the ubiquitousness of one product to force people to use another .
Internet Explorer is only the dominant browser because they artificially bundled it with Windows .
They gave it away in effect to drive Netscape out of business .
The EU clearly has more teeth to deal with the issue than the US and the case has been ongoing since 1993 .
The browser is only one of a catalogue of abuses MS have been found guilty with over networking , proprietary protocols , browsers and media players .
As to how they remedy the browser issue , that 's their own problem .
They could certainly have chosen a better way than crippling the European product like they did .
I expect they believe that by inconveniencing customers there will be a backlash against the EU .
This is just a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face and I expect it will worsen IE 's browser share far more than if they just offer users the choice of picking which browser to install .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not insane at all.
Microsoft used the ubiquitousness of one product to force people to use another.
Internet Explorer is only the dominant browser because they artificially bundled it with Windows.
They gave it away in effect to drive Netscape out of business.
The EU clearly has more teeth to deal with the issue than the US and the case has been ongoing since 1993.
The browser is only one of a catalogue of abuses MS have been found guilty with over networking, proprietary protocols, browsers and media players.
As to how they remedy the browser issue, that's their own problem.
They could certainly have chosen a better way than crippling the European product like they did.
I expect they believe that by inconveniencing customers there will be a backlash against the EU.
This is just a case of cutting off their nose to spite their face and I expect it will worsen IE's browser share far more than if they just offer users the choice of picking which browser to install.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723269</id>
	<title>Re:Monopolies get special treatment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247741220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is all nonsense.  If interoperability were important to consumers, they would choose an OS with that feature.  If MS can't do it, they will switch to an OS that can.</p><p>Competitors have the same options - write their own OS, use open source or write for another OS.  Get government out of this business and let consumers sort out what they want to buy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is all nonsense .
If interoperability were important to consumers , they would choose an OS with that feature .
If MS ca n't do it , they will switch to an OS that can.Competitors have the same options - write their own OS , use open source or write for another OS .
Get government out of this business and let consumers sort out what they want to buy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is all nonsense.
If interoperability were important to consumers, they would choose an OS with that feature.
If MS can't do it, they will switch to an OS that can.Competitors have the same options - write their own OS, use open source or write for another OS.
Get government out of this business and let consumers sort out what they want to buy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714261</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at the subject</title>
	<author>mrstella</author>
	<datestamp>1247741220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because in Europe there is no upgrade option.  So you're getting the entire operating system, not just an upgrade.  However, if you take the pre-order, you get the whole kit and caboodle for &#194;&pound;50, which isn't bad at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because in Europe there is no upgrade option .
So you 're getting the entire operating system , not just an upgrade .
However , if you take the pre-order , you get the whole kit and caboodle for     50 , which is n't bad at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because in Europe there is no upgrade option.
So you're getting the entire operating system, not just an upgrade.
However, if you take the pre-order, you get the whole kit and caboodle for Â£50, which isn't bad at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437</id>
	<title>Windows</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1247743620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so I'm on XP at the moment...  Just what incentive is there for me to upgrade, exactly?</p><p>I just ran through the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor program, purely out of interest.  Technically, I shouldn't have to update any hardware, though it didn't like my version of OpenOffice.  Hardware's the biggest hurdle usually - I didn't plug every USB device I have in (as it recommends) but I don't see there being problems.  However, the hassle associated with an "upgrade" is too much:</p><p>- I would have to wipe my machine clean (I've never done that on a personal computer, only for work... I've reimaged from backups, or converted a blank partition over to Linux, but never had to wipe an operating system off just to upgrade).<br>- I would have to reinstall ALL of my programs, settings, drivers, etc. that took me MONTHS to set up (seriously, I still have config files and reg files from programs that I set up ten years ago because they took a long time to get them how I like them).<br>- I lose quite a few little interface tweaks that I like to use.<br>- I gain some features that I really *can't* imagine myself using, and some that I can't imagine *anyone* really using.<br>- I gain a chance to remove Internet Explorer, that I don't use anyway.</p><p>I'm simplifying horribly, but what do I actually *gain* in real terms?  Slightly updated hardware support?  Maybe, but I haven't found anything that doesn't work on XP yet.  Slightly better performance?  Most probably drowned out by the fact that I only *just* qualify to run Windows 7 on this machine anyway, whereas I'm way over XP's comfort zone.  Does it actually *do* anything that my current OS doesn't (that I will *ever* use), or is it just a case of "version apathy" and that when I get a new computer, it'll be Windows 7 and until then I might as well stick with what I have?  Just the reinstall is hassle enough for me to say that I'll leave it until I get a new computer (which is a rare event for me).</p><p>I don't remember it being this way for Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or Windows 98 (and their various editions).  I have even upgraded from 98 to XP without problems before now (although it's not something I would just assume would work).  There's no technical reason why I can't upgrade, it's purely political, but even assuming I could: What do I gain for my money?</p><p>When the cost of an operating system would actually see *more* benefit by being used to purchase RAM, drive space, peripherals, etc. I fail to see the attraction.  Of course those with MSDN or money to burn will "upgrade" and tell us all how wonderful it is, but I can't see ANYTHING here... I didn't even see anything in Vista (which is universally loathed by the non-techy people who come to me for support).  Even the usual press is quite "dumbed down" about Windows 7 - there was an article on the BBC News website, that was about it, and most of that was telling how people "can't upgrade".  I remember a big press fuss over Vista but it doesn't seem present this time around.</p><p>Are people finally plateauing in what they expect from an OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so I 'm on XP at the moment... Just what incentive is there for me to upgrade , exactly ? I just ran through the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor program , purely out of interest .
Technically , I should n't have to update any hardware , though it did n't like my version of OpenOffice .
Hardware 's the biggest hurdle usually - I did n't plug every USB device I have in ( as it recommends ) but I do n't see there being problems .
However , the hassle associated with an " upgrade " is too much : - I would have to wipe my machine clean ( I 've never done that on a personal computer , only for work... I 've reimaged from backups , or converted a blank partition over to Linux , but never had to wipe an operating system off just to upgrade ) .- I would have to reinstall ALL of my programs , settings , drivers , etc .
that took me MONTHS to set up ( seriously , I still have config files and reg files from programs that I set up ten years ago because they took a long time to get them how I like them ) .- I lose quite a few little interface tweaks that I like to use.- I gain some features that I really * ca n't * imagine myself using , and some that I ca n't imagine * anyone * really using.- I gain a chance to remove Internet Explorer , that I do n't use anyway.I 'm simplifying horribly , but what do I actually * gain * in real terms ?
Slightly updated hardware support ?
Maybe , but I have n't found anything that does n't work on XP yet .
Slightly better performance ?
Most probably drowned out by the fact that I only * just * qualify to run Windows 7 on this machine anyway , whereas I 'm way over XP 's comfort zone .
Does it actually * do * anything that my current OS does n't ( that I will * ever * use ) , or is it just a case of " version apathy " and that when I get a new computer , it 'll be Windows 7 and until then I might as well stick with what I have ?
Just the reinstall is hassle enough for me to say that I 'll leave it until I get a new computer ( which is a rare event for me ) .I do n't remember it being this way for Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or Windows 98 ( and their various editions ) .
I have even upgraded from 98 to XP without problems before now ( although it 's not something I would just assume would work ) .
There 's no technical reason why I ca n't upgrade , it 's purely political , but even assuming I could : What do I gain for my money ? When the cost of an operating system would actually see * more * benefit by being used to purchase RAM , drive space , peripherals , etc .
I fail to see the attraction .
Of course those with MSDN or money to burn will " upgrade " and tell us all how wonderful it is , but I ca n't see ANYTHING here... I did n't even see anything in Vista ( which is universally loathed by the non-techy people who come to me for support ) .
Even the usual press is quite " dumbed down " about Windows 7 - there was an article on the BBC News website , that was about it , and most of that was telling how people " ca n't upgrade " .
I remember a big press fuss over Vista but it does n't seem present this time around.Are people finally plateauing in what they expect from an OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so I'm on XP at the moment...  Just what incentive is there for me to upgrade, exactly?I just ran through the Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor program, purely out of interest.
Technically, I shouldn't have to update any hardware, though it didn't like my version of OpenOffice.
Hardware's the biggest hurdle usually - I didn't plug every USB device I have in (as it recommends) but I don't see there being problems.
However, the hassle associated with an "upgrade" is too much:- I would have to wipe my machine clean (I've never done that on a personal computer, only for work... I've reimaged from backups, or converted a blank partition over to Linux, but never had to wipe an operating system off just to upgrade).- I would have to reinstall ALL of my programs, settings, drivers, etc.
that took me MONTHS to set up (seriously, I still have config files and reg files from programs that I set up ten years ago because they took a long time to get them how I like them).- I lose quite a few little interface tweaks that I like to use.- I gain some features that I really *can't* imagine myself using, and some that I can't imagine *anyone* really using.- I gain a chance to remove Internet Explorer, that I don't use anyway.I'm simplifying horribly, but what do I actually *gain* in real terms?
Slightly updated hardware support?
Maybe, but I haven't found anything that doesn't work on XP yet.
Slightly better performance?
Most probably drowned out by the fact that I only *just* qualify to run Windows 7 on this machine anyway, whereas I'm way over XP's comfort zone.
Does it actually *do* anything that my current OS doesn't (that I will *ever* use), or is it just a case of "version apathy" and that when I get a new computer, it'll be Windows 7 and until then I might as well stick with what I have?
Just the reinstall is hassle enough for me to say that I'll leave it until I get a new computer (which is a rare event for me).I don't remember it being this way for Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 or Windows 98 (and their various editions).
I have even upgraded from 98 to XP without problems before now (although it's not something I would just assume would work).
There's no technical reason why I can't upgrade, it's purely political, but even assuming I could: What do I gain for my money?When the cost of an operating system would actually see *more* benefit by being used to purchase RAM, drive space, peripherals, etc.
I fail to see the attraction.
Of course those with MSDN or money to burn will "upgrade" and tell us all how wonderful it is, but I can't see ANYTHING here... I didn't even see anything in Vista (which is universally loathed by the non-techy people who come to me for support).
Even the usual press is quite "dumbed down" about Windows 7 - there was an article on the BBC News website, that was about it, and most of that was telling how people "can't upgrade".
I remember a big press fuss over Vista but it doesn't seem present this time around.Are people finally plateauing in what they expect from an OS?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714913</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>1u3hr</author>
	<datestamp>1247749680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS. Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS?</i> <p>

Of course there's "no reason". The EU just Hates Freedom.</p><p>

Or perhaps it's because Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OSes. Similarly, Apple has a monopoly on downloaded music services. And so Apple has been ordered to open up iTunes in France, at least. Not Zune, because in that market, MS is not a monopoly. </p><p>

<i> If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor, I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off</i> </p><p>
Sure you would. And write off billions of dollars in annual sales. I suppose you say  "sole proprietorship" because if it was a public company you'd be sued by the shareholders for doing such a boneheaded thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS .
Why is n't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS ?
Of course there 's " no reason " .
The EU just Hates Freedom .
Or perhaps it 's because Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OSes .
Similarly , Apple has a monopoly on downloaded music services .
And so Apple has been ordered to open up iTunes in France , at least .
Not Zune , because in that market , MS is not a monopoly .
If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor , I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off Sure you would .
And write off billions of dollars in annual sales .
I suppose you say " sole proprietorship " because if it was a public company you 'd be sued by the shareholders for doing such a boneheaded thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS.
Why isn't Apple being told not to include Safari and iTunes and iCal and iWhateverthefuck in their OS?
Of course there's "no reason".
The EU just Hates Freedom.
Or perhaps it's because Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop OSes.
Similarly, Apple has a monopoly on downloaded music services.
And so Apple has been ordered to open up iTunes in France, at least.
Not Zune, because in that market, MS is not a monopoly.
If Microsoft were a sole proprietorship and I was the sole proprietor, I would certainly tell the EU to fuck off 
Sure you would.
And write off billions of dollars in annual sales.
I suppose you say  "sole proprietorship" because if it was a public company you'd be sued by the shareholders for doing such a boneheaded thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714779</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Sinus0idal</author>
	<datestamp>1247748120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm still running my 2k install from 2001, soon to be retired though.  It's been through several different PCs and is still fine.  Only app that i've ever been told by the installer it can't run is MSN messenger - so I just used an opensource MSN app.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still running my 2k install from 2001 , soon to be retired though .
It 's been through several different PCs and is still fine .
Only app that i 've ever been told by the installer it ca n't run is MSN messenger - so I just used an opensource MSN app .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still running my 2k install from 2001, soon to be retired though.
It's been through several different PCs and is still fine.
Only app that i've ever been told by the installer it can't run is MSN messenger - so I just used an opensource MSN app.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712791</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715847</id>
	<title>Re:"Only" told them to bundle other browsers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Opera says "top 5" browsers, but picking browsers by market share, in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony. Not to mention the magical number "5" comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share. If it was "top 3" they wouldn't even be in that list, depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit. Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users? <em>Please upgrade to a modern browser: Chrome, IE8, Firefox</em>. Opera's nowhere in that list. Should they sue YouTube?</p></div></blockquote><p>It's not as difficult as you make it out to be. You show the first Top 5 based on market share, then have a "See More Browsers..." link that lets you choose from a list of all other Windows-based browsers that are submitted for listing. You then adjust the Top 5 over time based on which browser users download. For instance, if Google stops supporting Chrome, downloads may slip and it may fall off the Top 5 and be replaced by something else.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Opera says " top 5 " browsers , but picking browsers by market share , in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony .
Not to mention the magical number " 5 " comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share .
If it was " top 3 " they would n't even be in that list , depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit .
Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users ?
Please upgrade to a modern browser : Chrome , IE8 , Firefox .
Opera 's nowhere in that list .
Should they sue YouTube ? It 's not as difficult as you make it out to be .
You show the first Top 5 based on market share , then have a " See More Browsers... " link that lets you choose from a list of all other Windows-based browsers that are submitted for listing .
You then adjust the Top 5 over time based on which browser users download .
For instance , if Google stops supporting Chrome , downloads may slip and it may fall off the Top 5 and be replaced by something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Opera says "top 5" browsers, but picking browsers by market share, in order to promote less popular competitors results in a bitter irony.
Not to mention the magical number "5" comes from Opera being 5-th in desktop browser market share.
If it was "top 3" they wouldn't even be in that list, depriving them of the purpose of their own lawsuit.
Have you seen what YouTube says to IE6 users?
Please upgrade to a modern browser: Chrome, IE8, Firefox.
Opera's nowhere in that list.
Should they sue YouTube?It's not as difficult as you make it out to be.
You show the first Top 5 based on market share, then have a "See More Browsers..." link that lets you choose from a list of all other Windows-based browsers that are submitted for listing.
You then adjust the Top 5 over time based on which browser users download.
For instance, if Google stops supporting Chrome, downloads may slip and it may fall off the Top 5 and be replaced by something else.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720489</id>
	<title>Re:But without Internet Explorer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247772780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By using the browser provided with your version of Windows 7 by your OEM</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By using the browser provided with your version of Windows 7 by your OEM</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By using the browser provided with your version of Windows 7 by your OEM</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716443</id>
	<title>Re:"Only" told them to bundle other browsers?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1247758020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure, they can sue Youtube. But Youtube isn't a monopoly. They don't lock out competitors in any way, shape or form, so they're more than welcome to advertise whoever they want. Microsoft is in a different boat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , they can sue Youtube .
But Youtube is n't a monopoly .
They do n't lock out competitors in any way , shape or form , so they 're more than welcome to advertise whoever they want .
Microsoft is in a different boat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, they can sue Youtube.
But Youtube isn't a monopoly.
They don't lock out competitors in any way, shape or form, so they're more than welcome to advertise whoever they want.
Microsoft is in a different boat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723871</id>
	<title>Re:Windows</title>
	<author>MrPhilby</author>
	<datestamp>1247743980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am using the Windows 7 RC. My wifi connects almosts instantly. When I dual boot back into the exact same install under XP it takes longer. When i come out of sleep I can use the system straight away, no waiting for the hard drive light to stop grinding. I don't have to organise the programs in my start menu into categories anymore as I can just hit the windows key and type the first few letters of a program name and then enter and it runs. Libraries, yes it's not WinFS but it's no half bad. When I have to reboot I can use the system much faster as many services and start up processes are delayed. All those little tweaks that we all wished MS had implimented earlier. I'm not saying it's perfect, but XP feels clunky and slow (yet familiar) when I go back there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am using the Windows 7 RC .
My wifi connects almosts instantly .
When I dual boot back into the exact same install under XP it takes longer .
When i come out of sleep I can use the system straight away , no waiting for the hard drive light to stop grinding .
I do n't have to organise the programs in my start menu into categories anymore as I can just hit the windows key and type the first few letters of a program name and then enter and it runs .
Libraries , yes it 's not WinFS but it 's no half bad .
When I have to reboot I can use the system much faster as many services and start up processes are delayed .
All those little tweaks that we all wished MS had implimented earlier .
I 'm not saying it 's perfect , but XP feels clunky and slow ( yet familiar ) when I go back there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am using the Windows 7 RC.
My wifi connects almosts instantly.
When I dual boot back into the exact same install under XP it takes longer.
When i come out of sleep I can use the system straight away, no waiting for the hard drive light to stop grinding.
I don't have to organise the programs in my start menu into categories anymore as I can just hit the windows key and type the first few letters of a program name and then enter and it runs.
Libraries, yes it's not WinFS but it's no half bad.
When I have to reboot I can use the system much faster as many services and start up processes are delayed.
All those little tweaks that we all wished MS had implimented earlier.
I'm not saying it's perfect, but XP feels clunky and slow (yet familiar) when I go back there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715647</id>
	<title>Re:if it was me</title>
	<author>CyberDragon777</author>
	<datestamp>1247754360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people's 3rd party software in my software product, I'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code.</p></div><p>And you would lose a market as big as the US.<br>And you would go bankrupt.<br>And you would become homeless.<br>And you would freeze to death in the winter.</p><p>Short: Play by the rules or GTFO.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people 's 3rd party software in my software product , I 'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code.And you would lose a market as big as the US.And you would go bankrupt.And you would become homeless.And you would freeze to death in the winter.Short : Play by the rules or GTFO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I made a product and Europe told me I HAD to include other people's 3rd party software in my software product, I'd tell them where to shove their 3rd part code.And you would lose a market as big as the US.And you would go bankrupt.And you would become homeless.And you would freeze to death in the winter.Short: Play by the rules or GTFO.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716703</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>professionalfurryele</author>
	<datestamp>1247758980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect it runs a little something like this. Microsoft knows if they ship Windows 7 with just IE the EU is going to tear them a new one. They know what the EU wants them to do. The EU wants them to let the OEMs put anything they like on the machines they ship, or even insist on alternatives being included. This is a worse scenario for Mircosoft than just not having a web browser because it not only makes people more aware there are alternatives, but it places those alternatives right in front of them. And OEMs marketing teams are going to start competing on who has the best browser bundled with their computers. Microsoft might well find themselves in a position where their monopoly in the browser market gets smashed. They would much rather stick a "get IE 8" message in the welcome screen in windows that every grandma and her dog will use than have some OEM piece of crapware present new users with a choice and risk grandma clicking one at random. Not to mention if I'm running a website in a European language other than English (fewer American visitors) and I know a very large fraction of my customers now have access to other browsers without too much trouble I might start contemplating offering a degraded experience to IE customers (rather than tweaking my code) and suggesting they use something more standards compliant. This forces Microsoft to improve their standard compliance which again weakens their monopoly.</p><p>As for the upgrade issue. Microsoft has probably weighed the cost of making it possible to remove IE from Vista and leave a functional operating system against making the EU look unpopular for 'forcing' them to make this decision (the EU has done no such thing, but that is how it will be marketed). Priorities at Microsoft go maintain monopolies first, revenue second. Upgrades don't really help the mircosoft monopoly anyway, since the original computer is already running windows, so there are really only offered as a convenience to their customers and some petty cash. Plus upgrades often go wrong and probably don't really help the Microsoft brand. It was probably already pretty marginal and Microsoft just decided their legal strategy pushed the value of offering upgrades past the tipping point.</p><p>The best thing the EU can do is just make Microsoft do what they don't want to and force them to include some alternatives. Then the Microsoft decision looks stupid and their browser monopoly will be under greater threat than ever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect it runs a little something like this .
Microsoft knows if they ship Windows 7 with just IE the EU is going to tear them a new one .
They know what the EU wants them to do .
The EU wants them to let the OEMs put anything they like on the machines they ship , or even insist on alternatives being included .
This is a worse scenario for Mircosoft than just not having a web browser because it not only makes people more aware there are alternatives , but it places those alternatives right in front of them .
And OEMs marketing teams are going to start competing on who has the best browser bundled with their computers .
Microsoft might well find themselves in a position where their monopoly in the browser market gets smashed .
They would much rather stick a " get IE 8 " message in the welcome screen in windows that every grandma and her dog will use than have some OEM piece of crapware present new users with a choice and risk grandma clicking one at random .
Not to mention if I 'm running a website in a European language other than English ( fewer American visitors ) and I know a very large fraction of my customers now have access to other browsers without too much trouble I might start contemplating offering a degraded experience to IE customers ( rather than tweaking my code ) and suggesting they use something more standards compliant .
This forces Microsoft to improve their standard compliance which again weakens their monopoly.As for the upgrade issue .
Microsoft has probably weighed the cost of making it possible to remove IE from Vista and leave a functional operating system against making the EU look unpopular for 'forcing ' them to make this decision ( the EU has done no such thing , but that is how it will be marketed ) .
Priorities at Microsoft go maintain monopolies first , revenue second .
Upgrades do n't really help the mircosoft monopoly anyway , since the original computer is already running windows , so there are really only offered as a convenience to their customers and some petty cash .
Plus upgrades often go wrong and probably do n't really help the Microsoft brand .
It was probably already pretty marginal and Microsoft just decided their legal strategy pushed the value of offering upgrades past the tipping point.The best thing the EU can do is just make Microsoft do what they do n't want to and force them to include some alternatives .
Then the Microsoft decision looks stupid and their browser monopoly will be under greater threat than ever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect it runs a little something like this.
Microsoft knows if they ship Windows 7 with just IE the EU is going to tear them a new one.
They know what the EU wants them to do.
The EU wants them to let the OEMs put anything they like on the machines they ship, or even insist on alternatives being included.
This is a worse scenario for Mircosoft than just not having a web browser because it not only makes people more aware there are alternatives, but it places those alternatives right in front of them.
And OEMs marketing teams are going to start competing on who has the best browser bundled with their computers.
Microsoft might well find themselves in a position where their monopoly in the browser market gets smashed.
They would much rather stick a "get IE 8" message in the welcome screen in windows that every grandma and her dog will use than have some OEM piece of crapware present new users with a choice and risk grandma clicking one at random.
Not to mention if I'm running a website in a European language other than English (fewer American visitors) and I know a very large fraction of my customers now have access to other browsers without too much trouble I might start contemplating offering a degraded experience to IE customers (rather than tweaking my code) and suggesting they use something more standards compliant.
This forces Microsoft to improve their standard compliance which again weakens their monopoly.As for the upgrade issue.
Microsoft has probably weighed the cost of making it possible to remove IE from Vista and leave a functional operating system against making the EU look unpopular for 'forcing' them to make this decision (the EU has done no such thing, but that is how it will be marketed).
Priorities at Microsoft go maintain monopolies first, revenue second.
Upgrades don't really help the mircosoft monopoly anyway, since the original computer is already running windows, so there are really only offered as a convenience to their customers and some petty cash.
Plus upgrades often go wrong and probably don't really help the Microsoft brand.
It was probably already pretty marginal and Microsoft just decided their legal strategy pushed the value of offering upgrades past the tipping point.The best thing the EU can do is just make Microsoft do what they don't want to and force them to include some alternatives.
Then the Microsoft decision looks stupid and their browser monopoly will be under greater threat than ever.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663</id>
	<title>The more I hear about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the more I see MS giving the EU a big F U. Not only have they had to put up with them telling them to open their system up for competition, but they get fined for when they try to do anything otherwise.</p><p>"Blasphemy!" they say. "We will only lose more market share!"</p><p>And its true. My god, imagine Normal-Joe-User having the choice between several brands of web browsers and media players to choose from. Internet Explorer sounds old and so 80s, where as Firefox has the words "fire" and "fox" so its gotta be both exciting and cuddly right?</p><p>So instead of giving them the choice, they opt to not give them any at all, foregoing the need to even have to bother with the EU ever again. I can see Balmer and his cronies sitting in a meeting and they all unanimously say "fuck it," raising a middle finger across the Atlantic as hard as they possibly could.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the more I see MS giving the EU a big F U. Not only have they had to put up with them telling them to open their system up for competition , but they get fined for when they try to do anything otherwise. " Blasphemy !
" they say .
" We will only lose more market share !
" And its true .
My god , imagine Normal-Joe-User having the choice between several brands of web browsers and media players to choose from .
Internet Explorer sounds old and so 80s , where as Firefox has the words " fire " and " fox " so its got ta be both exciting and cuddly right ? So instead of giving them the choice , they opt to not give them any at all , foregoing the need to even have to bother with the EU ever again .
I can see Balmer and his cronies sitting in a meeting and they all unanimously say " fuck it , " raising a middle finger across the Atlantic as hard as they possibly could .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the more I see MS giving the EU a big F U. Not only have they had to put up with them telling them to open their system up for competition, but they get fined for when they try to do anything otherwise."Blasphemy!
" they say.
"We will only lose more market share!
"And its true.
My god, imagine Normal-Joe-User having the choice between several brands of web browsers and media players to choose from.
Internet Explorer sounds old and so 80s, where as Firefox has the words "fire" and "fox" so its gotta be both exciting and cuddly right?So instead of giving them the choice, they opt to not give them any at all, foregoing the need to even have to bother with the EU ever again.
I can see Balmer and his cronies sitting in a meeting and they all unanimously say "fuck it," raising a middle finger across the Atlantic as hard as they possibly could.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713217</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247685780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is using "lawyers legal tactics", and IBM tactics in the 1970's, in the E.U...</p><p>I am wondering if MS lawyers do understand the Europeans and their strong distaste for monopolistic behaviors, made even more sensitive with the war to Irak, that impacts U.S icons, like Microsoft, Disney Corp, Mc Donalds, Harley Davidson, etc...</p><p>This could very well, get European customers mad enough to re-enforce their taste for competitive O/S es, like Apple's, or Linux'es.<br>It is my feeling that Microsoft action will create more public pressure for even more anti-trusts law in the E.U.<br>And the quite active pro-open source community in the E.U will love this too!</p><p>See: </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is using " lawyers legal tactics " , and IBM tactics in the 1970 's , in the E.U...I am wondering if MS lawyers do understand the Europeans and their strong distaste for monopolistic behaviors , made even more sensitive with the war to Irak , that impacts U.S icons , like Microsoft , Disney Corp , Mc Donalds , Harley Davidson , etc...This could very well , get European customers mad enough to re-enforce their taste for competitive O/S es , like Apple 's , or Linux'es.It is my feeling that Microsoft action will create more public pressure for even more anti-trusts law in the E.U.And the quite active pro-open source community in the E.U will love this too ! See :</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is using "lawyers legal tactics", and IBM tactics in the 1970's, in the E.U...I am wondering if MS lawyers do understand the Europeans and their strong distaste for monopolistic behaviors, made even more sensitive with the war to Irak, that impacts U.S icons, like Microsoft, Disney Corp, Mc Donalds, Harley Davidson, etc...This could very well, get European customers mad enough to re-enforce their taste for competitive O/S es, like Apple's, or Linux'es.It is my feeling that Microsoft action will create more public pressure for even more anti-trusts law in the E.U.And the quite active pro-open source community in the E.U will love this too!See: </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415</id>
	<title>Bureaucracy cannot fix monopoly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247678400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>EU gets the money but looks stupid in the end, and its citizens lose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>EU gets the money but looks stupid in the end , and its citizens lose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>EU gets the money but looks stupid in the end, and its citizens lose.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712401</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>schnikies79</author>
	<datestamp>1247678340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to reinstall every year.  My main rig has been running the same, non-reinstalled copy of XP for over 3 years.  It's fast and stable.</p><p>As far as upgrading though?  That's dumb.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to reinstall every year .
My main rig has been running the same , non-reinstalled copy of XP for over 3 years .
It 's fast and stable.As far as upgrading though ?
That 's dumb .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to reinstall every year.
My main rig has been running the same, non-reinstalled copy of XP for over 3 years.
It's fast and stable.As far as upgrading though?
That's dumb.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714361</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247742660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmmm... separate<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/home partition.  What a novel idea.  I wonder why some Open Source OS hasn't come up with that?  Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmmm... separate /home partition .
What a novel idea .
I wonder why some Open Source OS has n't come up with that ?
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmmm... separate /home partition.
What a novel idea.
I wonder why some Open Source OS hasn't come up with that?
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713763</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247777880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the webkit framework is opensource, so you can just modify it and do a drop in replacement if you'd like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the webkit framework is opensource , so you can just modify it and do a drop in replacement if you 'd like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the webkit framework is opensource, so you can just modify it and do a drop in replacement if you'd like.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715749</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Sam Douglas</author>
	<datestamp>1247754840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haha. I thought I was safe and then I installed an old version of Windows 2000 somewhat recently. Setup smilingly told me it was partitioning C: as a 100GB partition, while formatting/clobbering the entire disk. The partition table it actually wrote out made no sense what so ever (partitions intersected, etc.). Lesson: back up your data. Bugs happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha .
I thought I was safe and then I installed an old version of Windows 2000 somewhat recently .
Setup smilingly told me it was partitioning C : as a 100GB partition , while formatting/clobbering the entire disk .
The partition table it actually wrote out made no sense what so ever ( partitions intersected , etc. ) .
Lesson : back up your data .
Bugs happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha.
I thought I was safe and then I installed an old version of Windows 2000 somewhat recently.
Setup smilingly told me it was partitioning C: as a 100GB partition, while formatting/clobbering the entire disk.
The partition table it actually wrote out made no sense what so ever (partitions intersected, etc.).
Lesson: back up your data.
Bugs happen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723757</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247743320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>insightful? seriously?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>insightful ?
seriously ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>insightful?
seriously?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491</id>
	<title>Why must I have Windows 7?</title>
	<author>bogaboga</author>
	<datestamp>1247679300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all. Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7? Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all .
Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7 ?
Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I currently run Windows XP and Debian with KDE 4.2.4 and I love them all.
Could someone tell me why I should care about Windows 7?
Heck...the need for its activation too keeps me far from even trying it out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716297</id>
	<title>Re:The more I hear about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247757300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spot on, and rightly so. I'm in the EU and all I see is the EU trying to rip off the richest company on earth. My question is, where the hell are the millions Microsoft are being fined going? To the people that have had to "suffer" this egregious use of Internet Explorer? Not likely.</p><p>I wonder, if the EU decided to fine Microsoft another exhorbitant amount of cash and MS told EU to "go forth and prosper" would the EU have the stones to attempt to ban the import of Microsoft's operating systems when probably 95\% of the EU's governments use their software?</p><p>How quickly would they have to reverse their decision I wonder?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spot on , and rightly so .
I 'm in the EU and all I see is the EU trying to rip off the richest company on earth .
My question is , where the hell are the millions Microsoft are being fined going ?
To the people that have had to " suffer " this egregious use of Internet Explorer ?
Not likely.I wonder , if the EU decided to fine Microsoft another exhorbitant amount of cash and MS told EU to " go forth and prosper " would the EU have the stones to attempt to ban the import of Microsoft 's operating systems when probably 95 \ % of the EU 's governments use their software ? How quickly would they have to reverse their decision I wonder ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spot on, and rightly so.
I'm in the EU and all I see is the EU trying to rip off the richest company on earth.
My question is, where the hell are the millions Microsoft are being fined going?
To the people that have had to "suffer" this egregious use of Internet Explorer?
Not likely.I wonder, if the EU decided to fine Microsoft another exhorbitant amount of cash and MS told EU to "go forth and prosper" would the EU have the stones to attempt to ban the import of Microsoft's operating systems when probably 95\% of the EU's governments use their software?How quickly would they have to reverse their decision I wonder?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713389</id>
	<title>Re:The last thing we need ...</title>
	<author>rdebath</author>
	<datestamp>1247687760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
It's called <a href="http://offbyone.com/offbyone/" title="offbyone.com">Off by One</a> [offbyone.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called Off by One [ offbyone.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's called Off by One [offbyone.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720131</id>
	<title>Re:Bureaucracy cannot fix monopoly</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1247771460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not about money but law.</p><p>The EU can only impose fines, not criminal penalties.</p><p>Allegations of "money" are slander which misinterpret the way the authority works.</p><p>It is not the benefit of the authority but the pain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not about money but law.The EU can only impose fines , not criminal penalties.Allegations of " money " are slander which misinterpret the way the authority works.It is not the benefit of the authority but the pain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not about money but law.The EU can only impose fines, not criminal penalties.Allegations of "money" are slander which misinterpret the way the authority works.It is not the benefit of the authority but the pain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712391</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247678160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I haven't patched my Windows boxes in years, you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have n't patched my Windows boxes in years , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I haven't patched my Windows boxes in years, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713305</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1247686620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's the bullshit soft option to try to take MS to task for standover tactics they have used on computer manufacturers without taking thirty years in court to attempt to prove that those standover tactics are occuring.  It COULD be a complete co-incidence that the CEO of ASUS was singing the praises of linux netbooks in the morning at a tradeshow and making an apology that they did not have XP on them in the afternoon, but IMHO it was a blatant example of someone that had been bought or threatened over his lunch with Microsoft executives.<br> <br>It's the Al Capone tax fraud option, but even weaker than that since new rules had to be thought up to get that to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the bullshit soft option to try to take MS to task for standover tactics they have used on computer manufacturers without taking thirty years in court to attempt to prove that those standover tactics are occuring .
It COULD be a complete co-incidence that the CEO of ASUS was singing the praises of linux netbooks in the morning at a tradeshow and making an apology that they did not have XP on them in the afternoon , but IMHO it was a blatant example of someone that had been bought or threatened over his lunch with Microsoft executives .
It 's the Al Capone tax fraud option , but even weaker than that since new rules had to be thought up to get that to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the bullshit soft option to try to take MS to task for standover tactics they have used on computer manufacturers without taking thirty years in court to attempt to prove that those standover tactics are occuring.
It COULD be a complete co-incidence that the CEO of ASUS was singing the praises of linux netbooks in the morning at a tradeshow and making an apology that they did not have XP on them in the afternoon, but IMHO it was a blatant example of someone that had been bought or threatened over his lunch with Microsoft executives.
It's the Al Capone tax fraud option, but even weaker than that since new rules had to be thought up to get that to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718663</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1247766060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, we too have laws.</p><p>We, unlike the British, have this odd concept that laws ought to apply equally to all.</p><p>You might have heard of this oddity while doting on your kings and queens.</p><p>If it is illegal for Microsoft to include a browser, you should be able to point to a specific chapter and verse of the law stating this.</p><p>And if it is illegal for Microsoft to include a browser, it should also be illegal for Apple, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and anyone else selling a operating system.</p><p>But you see, its not about fairness or legality.  Its about tall poppy syndrome.</p><p>Did Microsoft commit excesses in the past?  Sure.  Was the browser one of them? No.  (Other than the quality of said browser, which is criminal).</p><p>Should Ford be forced to deliver a car without tires (tyres) just because they have been successful at avoiding bankruptcy? After all, they  have been hauled into court in years past for anti-competitive abuses.</p><p>Nobody charges for browser.<br>Therefore this competitive market place drivel you proffer is nonsense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , we too have laws.We , unlike the British , have this odd concept that laws ought to apply equally to all.You might have heard of this oddity while doting on your kings and queens.If it is illegal for Microsoft to include a browser , you should be able to point to a specific chapter and verse of the law stating this.And if it is illegal for Microsoft to include a browser , it should also be illegal for Apple , Red Hat , Ubuntu , and anyone else selling a operating system.But you see , its not about fairness or legality .
Its about tall poppy syndrome.Did Microsoft commit excesses in the past ?
Sure. Was the browser one of them ?
No. ( Other than the quality of said browser , which is criminal ) .Should Ford be forced to deliver a car without tires ( tyres ) just because they have been successful at avoiding bankruptcy ?
After all , they have been hauled into court in years past for anti-competitive abuses.Nobody charges for browser.Therefore this competitive market place drivel you proffer is nonsense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, we too have laws.We, unlike the British, have this odd concept that laws ought to apply equally to all.You might have heard of this oddity while doting on your kings and queens.If it is illegal for Microsoft to include a browser, you should be able to point to a specific chapter and verse of the law stating this.And if it is illegal for Microsoft to include a browser, it should also be illegal for Apple, Red Hat, Ubuntu, and anyone else selling a operating system.But you see, its not about fairness or legality.
Its about tall poppy syndrome.Did Microsoft commit excesses in the past?
Sure.  Was the browser one of them?
No.  (Other than the quality of said browser, which is criminal).Should Ford be forced to deliver a car without tires (tyres) just because they have been successful at avoiding bankruptcy?
After all, they  have been hauled into court in years past for anti-competitive abuses.Nobody charges for browser.Therefore this competitive market place drivel you proffer is nonsense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714701</id>
	<title>Re:The more I hear about it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247747100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I can see Balmer and his cronies sitting in a meeting and they all unanimously say "fuck it," raising a middle finger across the Atlantic as hard as they possibly could.</p></div><p>Or throwing a chair in that general direction.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see Balmer and his cronies sitting in a meeting and they all unanimously say " fuck it , " raising a middle finger across the Atlantic as hard as they possibly could.Or throwing a chair in that general direction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I can see Balmer and his cronies sitting in a meeting and they all unanimously say "fuck it," raising a middle finger across the Atlantic as hard as they possibly could.Or throwing a chair in that general direction.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714783</id>
	<title>Re:Slightly Wrong Summary</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1247748180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>MS's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy,</p></div><p>
What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS?<br>
<br>
Isn't the complaint that IE is included in the OS, and that this is the problem?<br>
<br>
There is NOTHING more effective than that. I'm sorry but the whole "include other browsers" thing is pretty laughable. It isnt a remedy for anything.. it is instead a bunch of bullshit pretending to be a remedy.<br>
<br>
Sure.. the end users in the E.U. are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. because they want a fucking browser! The tragedy here is that the company is being fucked with precisely because it is giving the customers what they want, as if that is some sort of crime.<br>
<br>
In other news, Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>MS 's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy , What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS ?
Is n't the complaint that IE is included in the OS , and that this is the problem ?
There is NOTHING more effective than that .
I 'm sorry but the whole " include other browsers " thing is pretty laughable .
It isnt a remedy for anything.. it is instead a bunch of bullshit pretending to be a remedy .
Sure.. the end users in the E.U .
are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS .. because they want a fucking browser !
The tragedy here is that the company is being fucked with precisely because it is giving the customers what they want , as if that is some sort of crime .
In other news , Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS's announcement that they are excluding IE in Windows 7 was a preemptive strike by MS in the hopes the EU would not order a more effective remedy,
What could possibly be more effective than the removal of IE from the OS?
Isn't the complaint that IE is included in the OS, and that this is the problem?
There is NOTHING more effective than that.
I'm sorry but the whole "include other browsers" thing is pretty laughable.
It isnt a remedy for anything.. it is instead a bunch of bullshit pretending to be a remedy.
Sure.. the end users in the E.U.
are of course NOT going to be choosing a browserless OS .. because they want a fucking browser!
The tragedy here is that the company is being fucked with precisely because it is giving the customers what they want, as if that is some sort of crime.
In other news, Google announces a Browser with an OS bundled.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715177</id>
	<title>Re:While we're at the subject</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247751600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>25\% VAT in Sweden<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>25 \ % VAT in Sweden : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>25\% VAT in Sweden :(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722231</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>cbhacking</author>
	<datestamp>1247736600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you fucking serious? A "well-designed" app <b>NEVER</b> tries to write into its install directory except suring patches. Data file that will need updating, user data, configuration options, logfiles, and everything else of that nature belong in the "Application Data" folder (\%USERPROFILE\%\AppData\Local on Vista/Win7).</p><p>If you don't do this, than you either have to run the program as Administrator all the time, or you need to lower the security on the install folder so that it's user-writable. Either one is both stupid from a security viewpoint, and offers the potential to really screw things up. Also, what about if you have multiple user accounts on your system, and they have different application settings? Another good reason to store the data in a per-user (and user-writable) location.</p><p>It was developers doing dumb shit like this (counting on users *always* running as Administrator) that caused the majority of "My program won't run under Vista" complaints. It's a practice that should have died out with Win9x.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you fucking serious ?
A " well-designed " app NEVER tries to write into its install directory except suring patches .
Data file that will need updating , user data , configuration options , logfiles , and everything else of that nature belong in the " Application Data " folder ( \ % USERPROFILE \ % \ AppData \ Local on Vista/Win7 ) .If you do n't do this , than you either have to run the program as Administrator all the time , or you need to lower the security on the install folder so that it 's user-writable .
Either one is both stupid from a security viewpoint , and offers the potential to really screw things up .
Also , what about if you have multiple user accounts on your system , and they have different application settings ?
Another good reason to store the data in a per-user ( and user-writable ) location.It was developers doing dumb shit like this ( counting on users * always * running as Administrator ) that caused the majority of " My program wo n't run under Vista " complaints .
It 's a practice that should have died out with Win9x .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you fucking serious?
A "well-designed" app NEVER tries to write into its install directory except suring patches.
Data file that will need updating, user data, configuration options, logfiles, and everything else of that nature belong in the "Application Data" folder (\%USERPROFILE\%\AppData\Local on Vista/Win7).If you don't do this, than you either have to run the program as Administrator all the time, or you need to lower the security on the install folder so that it's user-writable.
Either one is both stupid from a security viewpoint, and offers the potential to really screw things up.
Also, what about if you have multiple user accounts on your system, and they have different application settings?
Another good reason to store the data in a per-user (and user-writable) location.It was developers doing dumb shit like this (counting on users *always* running as Administrator) that caused the majority of "My program won't run under Vista" complaints.
It's a practice that should have died out with Win9x.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713121</id>
	<title>Re:If you have to do a clean install anyway...</title>
	<author>clarkn0va</author>
	<datestamp>1247684820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X?</p></div><p>This logic has wholly failed up to now, and you think your AC advice at the bottom of this discussion is going to suddenly cause an epiphany for people?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X ? This logic has wholly failed up to now , and you think your AC advice at the bottom of this discussion is going to suddenly cause an epiphany for people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not put yourself out of your misery and upgrade to Mac OS X?This logic has wholly failed up to now, and you think your AC advice at the bottom of this discussion is going to suddenly cause an epiphany for people?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715505</id>
	<title>Re:Removing IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247753400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the problem is that if Microsoft shipped Windows 7 DVDs with Internet Explorer installed by default, a few years down the road there is a greater risk tje EU could come back and say they were still in violation and need to pay x number of bilions in fines for trying to trick consumers into installing IE.</p><p>Microsoft is literally an ATM machine for the UE, they will just dig up something whenever they need money, whether it's relevant or not.</p><p>with IE being completely gone from the gold disk, there is no way that the UE can halt the shipping of Windows 7, force microsoft into recalls, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that if Microsoft shipped Windows 7 DVDs with Internet Explorer installed by default , a few years down the road there is a greater risk tje EU could come back and say they were still in violation and need to pay x number of bilions in fines for trying to trick consumers into installing IE.Microsoft is literally an ATM machine for the UE , they will just dig up something whenever they need money , whether it 's relevant or not.with IE being completely gone from the gold disk , there is no way that the UE can halt the shipping of Windows 7 , force microsoft into recalls , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that if Microsoft shipped Windows 7 DVDs with Internet Explorer installed by default, a few years down the road there is a greater risk tje EU could come back and say they were still in violation and need to pay x number of bilions in fines for trying to trick consumers into installing IE.Microsoft is literally an ATM machine for the UE, they will just dig up something whenever they need money, whether it's relevant or not.with IE being completely gone from the gold disk, there is no way that the UE can halt the shipping of Windows 7, force microsoft into recalls, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715413</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>sa1lnr</author>
	<datestamp>1247752860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS."</p><p>From all that I've read on the subject, the EU has never said that they can't bundle their own software with their own OS.</p><p>This "feature" has been implemented by Microsoft and Microsoft alone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS .
" From all that I 've read on the subject , the EU has never said that they ca n't bundle their own software with their own OS.This " feature " has been implemented by Microsoft and Microsoft alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"There was really no reason for them not to be able to bundle their own software in their own OS.
"From all that I've read on the subject, the EU has never said that they can't bundle their own software with their own OS.This "feature" has been implemented by Microsoft and Microsoft alone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712639</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>thevoice</author>
	<datestamp>1247680560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because different rules apply to monopolies, that's the law, sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because different rules apply to monopolies , that 's the law , sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because different rules apply to monopolies, that's the law, sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714475</id>
	<title>Re:OOh</title>
	<author>cayenne8</author>
	<datestamp>1247743920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Right-click on "my documents" to move it to a folder on D:"</i> <p>
Hmm...I've never really ever kept anything in My Documents. I generally don't like to put everything in a default folder the OS chooses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Right-click on " my documents " to move it to a folder on D : " Hmm...I 've never really ever kept anything in My Documents .
I generally do n't like to put everything in a default folder the OS chooses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Right-click on "my documents" to move it to a folder on D:" 
Hmm...I've never really ever kept anything in My Documents.
I generally don't like to put everything in a default folder the OS chooses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716917</id>
	<title>Re:Microsoft vs Governments</title>
	<author>manekineko2</author>
	<datestamp>1247759700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yep, the EU is a paradise totally immune to special-interest lobbying.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Directive" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Directive</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Oh, and by the way, what prompted this rant that managed to get modded up despite being completely unrelated to the parent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep , the EU is a paradise totally immune to special-interest lobbying.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright \ _Directive [ wikipedia.org ] Oh , and by the way , what prompted this rant that managed to get modded up despite being completely unrelated to the parent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep, the EU is a paradise totally immune to special-interest lobbying.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright\_Directive [wikipedia.org]Oh, and by the way, what prompted this rant that managed to get modded up despite being completely unrelated to the parent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715899</id>
	<title>Re:Why must I have Windows 7?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247755560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP is good until 2014. If it ain't broke...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP is good until 2014 .
If it ai n't broke.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP is good until 2014.
If it ain't broke...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714097</id>
	<title>Petulance</title>
	<author>Bozovision</author>
	<datestamp>1247739000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When my child gets punished for bad behavior, she will sometimes get cross and in a fit of spite she will do things that she thinks will hurt us, her parents. Often she ends up hurting herself more through her actions.</p><p>Microsoft makes some fine software. They are a bunch of bright, creative people. But apparently they have the corporate personality of a 4 year old bully. They were caught being bad, again, and their response to being punished is petulance. Not to worry; they are harming themselves. The middle of a recession is not a good time to make your product more expensive and with a higher barrier to entry.</p><p>----------</p><p>I've seen a few people saying that it would be hard for them to give a choice of browsers, and that, in fact, just deciding <em>which</em> browsers would be too hard for some of the brightest people on the planet. I wouldn't compare my intellectual powers with those  of Mr Ballmer, but I can imagine that they could:<br>1. Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports, so that it can be implemented in other browsers<br>2. Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the API<br>3. Bundle Mozilla, Opera and Safari<br>4. Ask the user for a URL, then download a browser as part of the installation process<br>5. Ask the user to insert a CD containing the browser</p><p>None of these are exclusive of the others - they should be doing all five.</p><p>What I see is a case of corporate petulance and bad grace from a management team who think that they are above the law.</p><p>--------------</p><p>Now some balance.</p><p>If I were in the position where I was genuinely surprised by the EU's decision (though I can't see how MS could possibly be surprised), and I was completely unprepared, rather than hold back the launch of the OS globally, I might choose to issue it in stages in the EU to give myself time to comply with the ruling. However, I would also be incredibly careful to communicate about this strategy so as not to upset my customers. But as far as I can make out, this is not what is happening here because I've seen no explanation as to how insisting on a clean install fits in with a two stage strategy or how it complies with the EU ruling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When my child gets punished for bad behavior , she will sometimes get cross and in a fit of spite she will do things that she thinks will hurt us , her parents .
Often she ends up hurting herself more through her actions.Microsoft makes some fine software .
They are a bunch of bright , creative people .
But apparently they have the corporate personality of a 4 year old bully .
They were caught being bad , again , and their response to being punished is petulance .
Not to worry ; they are harming themselves .
The middle of a recession is not a good time to make your product more expensive and with a higher barrier to entry.----------I 've seen a few people saying that it would be hard for them to give a choice of browsers , and that , in fact , just deciding which browsers would be too hard for some of the brightest people on the planet .
I would n't compare my intellectual powers with those of Mr Ballmer , but I can imagine that they could : 1 .
Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports , so that it can be implemented in other browsers2 .
Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what 's missing from the API3 .
Bundle Mozilla , Opera and Safari4 .
Ask the user for a URL , then download a browser as part of the installation process5 .
Ask the user to insert a CD containing the browserNone of these are exclusive of the others - they should be doing all five.What I see is a case of corporate petulance and bad grace from a management team who think that they are above the law.--------------Now some balance.If I were in the position where I was genuinely surprised by the EU 's decision ( though I ca n't see how MS could possibly be surprised ) , and I was completely unprepared , rather than hold back the launch of the OS globally , I might choose to issue it in stages in the EU to give myself time to comply with the ruling .
However , I would also be incredibly careful to communicate about this strategy so as not to upset my customers .
But as far as I can make out , this is not what is happening here because I 've seen no explanation as to how insisting on a clean install fits in with a two stage strategy or how it complies with the EU ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When my child gets punished for bad behavior, she will sometimes get cross and in a fit of spite she will do things that she thinks will hurt us, her parents.
Often she ends up hurting herself more through her actions.Microsoft makes some fine software.
They are a bunch of bright, creative people.
But apparently they have the corporate personality of a 4 year old bully.
They were caught being bad, again, and their response to being punished is petulance.
Not to worry; they are harming themselves.
The middle of a recession is not a good time to make your product more expensive and with a higher barrier to entry.----------I've seen a few people saying that it would be hard for them to give a choice of browsers, and that, in fact, just deciding which browsers would be too hard for some of the brightest people on the planet.
I wouldn't compare my intellectual powers with those  of Mr Ballmer, but I can imagine that they could:1.
Publish the specifications of the integration API that IE supports, so that it can be implemented in other browsers2.
Publish the source code to IE so that people can see what's missing from the API3.
Bundle Mozilla, Opera and Safari4.
Ask the user for a URL, then download a browser as part of the installation process5.
Ask the user to insert a CD containing the browserNone of these are exclusive of the others - they should be doing all five.What I see is a case of corporate petulance and bad grace from a management team who think that they are above the law.--------------Now some balance.If I were in the position where I was genuinely surprised by the EU's decision (though I can't see how MS could possibly be surprised), and I was completely unprepared, rather than hold back the launch of the OS globally, I might choose to issue it in stages in the EU to give myself time to comply with the ruling.
However, I would also be incredibly careful to communicate about this strategy so as not to upset my customers.
But as far as I can make out, this is not what is happening here because I've seen no explanation as to how insisting on a clean install fits in with a two stage strategy or how it complies with the EU ruling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712379</id>
	<title>Same old crap</title>
	<author>gruntled</author>
	<datestamp>1247678100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They did exactly the same thing during the antitrust trial. In December 1997 (or thereabouts), Microsoft responded to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's order to provide a version of Windows 98 without a browser by offering up a version of the OS that wouldn't run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did exactly the same thing during the antitrust trial .
In December 1997 ( or thereabouts ) , Microsoft responded to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson 's order to provide a version of Windows 98 without a browser by offering up a version of the OS that would n't run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They did exactly the same thing during the antitrust trial.
In December 1997 (or thereabouts), Microsoft responded to Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's order to provide a version of Windows 98 without a browser by offering up a version of the OS that wouldn't run.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712645</id>
	<title>Clean install? Good!</title>
	<author>Uzull</author>
	<datestamp>1247680620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will wipe then all of malware from the start on.<br>M$, please make it perfect with a mandatory harddisk format at install time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will wipe then all of malware from the start on.M $ , please make it perfect with a mandatory harddisk format at install time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will wipe then all of malware from the start on.M$, please make it perfect with a mandatory harddisk format at install time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718063</id>
	<title>Re:Windows</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247764080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the most common upgrade scenario is with the purchase of a new computer.</p><p>That's my plan, but this laptop is working well enough that I will probably be using XP for at least another year. Maybe it will even hold out until (consumer) SSDs hit sane price points.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the most common upgrade scenario is with the purchase of a new computer.That 's my plan , but this laptop is working well enough that I will probably be using XP for at least another year .
Maybe it will even hold out until ( consumer ) SSDs hit sane price points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the most common upgrade scenario is with the purchase of a new computer.That's my plan, but this laptop is working well enough that I will probably be using XP for at least another year.
Maybe it will even hold out until (consumer) SSDs hit sane price points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715309</id>
	<title>Re:I don't blame them.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247752200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But the fact of the matter is... anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer either likes it better than everything else, has no clue of the difference between it and Firefox and whatever else, or the more likely reason that their company forces them to, and that is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS.</p></div><p>Did you say "fact"?  Let's set the way back machine to 1999;</p><p><div class="quote"><p>  <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/1467.pdf" title="usdoj.gov" rel="nofollow">Deposition excerpts of Bill Gates</a> [usdoj.gov]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; January 13, 1999</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [...]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Q: Mr. Gates, let me show you a document<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; marked as Government Trial Exhibit 55.  The first<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [511]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; message here purports to be a message to you and<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Mr. Maritz and Mr. Allchin on February 24, 1997,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; at 11:07 P.M.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Do you see that?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A: Yes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Q: And it talks about a focus group<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; report, and it says that most of the people in<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the focus group were Navigator users.  And then<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; it goes on to say about those Navigator users,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; they said they would not switch, would not want<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; to download IE 4 to replace their Navigator<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; browser.  However, once everything is in the OS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and right there, integrated into the OS, in their<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; face, so to speak, then they said they would use<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; it because there would be no more need to use<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; something separate.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Do you see that?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A: Yes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [...]</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Q: Right.  The next to last paragraph on<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; the fifth page of the exhibit, the one that ends<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; with the Microsoft document production stamp<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 8179--Do you have that page?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A: Yes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Q: The next to last paragraph of this<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; material that was sent to you on February 24th,<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; '97, if, in fact, it was, on page 5 it says, "It<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; seems clear that it will be very hard to increase<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [513]<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; It will be more important to leverage the OS<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; asset to make people use IE instead of<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Navigator."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Do you see that?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; A: Yes.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; [...]</p></div><p>I look forward to the pending change<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. or the automatic update that applies IE the moment EU users connect to the Cloud<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But the fact of the matter is... anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer either likes it better than everything else , has no clue of the difference between it and Firefox and whatever else , or the more likely reason that their company forces them to , and that is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS.Did you say " fact " ?
Let 's set the way back machine to 1999 ; Deposition excerpts of Bill Gates [ usdoj.gov ]     January 13 , 1999         [ ... ]         Q : Mr. Gates , let me show you a document             marked as Government Trial Exhibit 55 .
The first         [ 511 ]             message here purports to be a message to you and             Mr. Maritz and Mr. Allchin on February 24 , 1997 ,             at 11 : 07 P.M .             Do you see that ?
        A : Yes .
        Q : And it talks about a focus group             report , and it says that most of the people in             the focus group were Navigator users .
And then             it goes on to say about those Navigator users ,             they said they would not switch , would not want             to download IE 4 to replace their Navigator             browser .
However , once everything is in the OS             and right there , integrated into the OS , in their             face , so to speak , then they said they would use             it because there would be no more need to use             something separate .
            Do you see that ?
        A : Yes .
        [ ... ]         Q : Right .
The next to last paragraph on             the fifth page of the exhibit , the one that ends             with the Microsoft document production stamp             8179--Do you have that page ?
        A : Yes .
        Q : The next to last paragraph of this             material that was sent to you on February 24th ,             '97 , if , in fact , it was , on page 5 it says , " It             seems clear that it will be very hard to increase             browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone .
        [ 513 ]             It will be more important to leverage the OS             asset to make people use IE instead of             Navigator .
"             Do you see that ?
        A : Yes .
        [ ... ] I look forward to the pending change .. or the automatic update that applies IE the moment EU users connect to the Cloud . .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the fact of the matter is... anybody who currently uses Internet Explorer either likes it better than everything else, has no clue of the difference between it and Firefox and whatever else, or the more likely reason that their company forces them to, and that is not going to change no matter how many browsers are included in the OS.Did you say "fact"?
Let's set the way back machine to 1999;  Deposition excerpts of Bill Gates [usdoj.gov]
    January 13, 1999
        [...]
        Q: Mr. Gates, let me show you a document
            marked as Government Trial Exhibit 55.
The first
        [511]
            message here purports to be a message to you and
            Mr. Maritz and Mr. Allchin on February 24, 1997,
            at 11:07 P.M.
            Do you see that?
        A: Yes.
        Q: And it talks about a focus group
            report, and it says that most of the people in
            the focus group were Navigator users.
And then
            it goes on to say about those Navigator users,
            they said they would not switch, would not want
            to download IE 4 to replace their Navigator
            browser.
However, once everything is in the OS
            and right there, integrated into the OS, in their
            face, so to speak, then they said they would use
            it because there would be no more need to use
            something separate.
            Do you see that?
        A: Yes.
        [...]
        Q: Right.
The next to last paragraph on
            the fifth page of the exhibit, the one that ends
            with the Microsoft document production stamp
            8179--Do you have that page?
        A: Yes.
        Q: The next to last paragraph of this
            material that was sent to you on February 24th,
            '97, if, in fact, it was, on page 5 it says, "It
            seems clear that it will be very hard to increase
            browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone.
        [513]
            It will be more important to leverage the OS
            asset to make people use IE instead of
            Navigator.
"
            Do you see that?
        A: Yes.
        [...]I look forward to the pending change .. or the automatic update that applies IE the moment EU users connect to the Cloud ..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714235
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715785
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723757
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28724875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715787
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720489
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714207
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713121
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722231
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28721421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714261
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712791
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713281
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715373
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723717
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718781
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714771
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713071
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716035
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713875
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715679
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716703
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712809
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713385
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715177
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28725145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712805
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718225
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718833
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712825
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713363
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718175
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28724763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714913
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715239
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714783
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_15_2244200_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712639
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712805
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28724875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723269
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28724763
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712809
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714913
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718833
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713981
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714783
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722211
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716703
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713053
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717325
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718663
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713363
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720425
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714631
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722563
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713875
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715679
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714641
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715853
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715593
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723717
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28721421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712571
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714235
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714207
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719695
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714545
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28725145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713281
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715157
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714925
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717083
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718781
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714771
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713071
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28718063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712465
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714261
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714601
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712415
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28716233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28720131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_15_2244200.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712637
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715343
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713237
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717255
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28722231
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714475
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28723757
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713899
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28717469
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28719331
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28713445
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28715749
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712791
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28714779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_15_2244200.28712391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
