<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_12_1429214</id>
	<title>Revisiting the Original Reviews of Windows Vista</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1255360620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>harrymcc writes <i>'We now know that a remarkable percentage of consumers and businesses decided to spurn Windows Vista and stay with XP. But <a href="http://technologizer.com/2009/10/12/windows-vista-a-review-recap/">did the reviews of Vista serve as an early warning</a> that it had major problems? I looked back at the evaluations in nine major publications and found that they expressed some caution--but on the whole, they were far from scathing. Some were downright enthusiastic.'</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>harrymcc writes 'We now know that a remarkable percentage of consumers and businesses decided to spurn Windows Vista and stay with XP .
But did the reviews of Vista serve as an early warning that it had major problems ?
I looked back at the evaluations in nine major publications and found that they expressed some caution--but on the whole , they were far from scathing .
Some were downright enthusiastic .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>harrymcc writes 'We now know that a remarkable percentage of consumers and businesses decided to spurn Windows Vista and stay with XP.
But did the reviews of Vista serve as an early warning that it had major problems?
I looked back at the evaluations in nine major publications and found that they expressed some caution--but on the whole, they were far from scathing.
Some were downright enthusiastic.
'</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719413</id>
	<title>who got it right?</title>
	<author>Dan667</author>
	<datestamp>1255365240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>More interesting would be who got it right with windows xp and windows vista reviews.</htmltext>
<tokenext>More interesting would be who got it right with windows xp and windows vista reviews .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More interesting would be who got it right with windows xp and windows vista reviews.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721579</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255374060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ditch Ubuntu, go for Kanotix or Sidux...way better interfaces.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ditch Ubuntu , go for Kanotix or Sidux...way better interfaces .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ditch Ubuntu, go for Kanotix or Sidux...way better interfaces.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719753</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>majortom1981</author>
	<datestamp>1255366560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well on my network we just got all new z600 workstations with xp<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.As soon as our windows 7 licenses come in we will be putting windows 7 on the machines. N oreason not to with xp mode if we need xp we just run the program virtually in xp mode.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well on my network we just got all new z600 workstations with xp .As soon as our windows 7 licenses come in we will be putting windows 7 on the machines .
N oreason not to with xp mode if we need xp we just run the program virtually in xp mode .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well on my network we just got all new z600 workstations with xp .As soon as our windows 7 licenses come in we will be putting windows 7 on the machines.
N oreason not to with xp mode if we need xp we just run the program virtually in xp mode.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720009</id>
	<title>The Real Cause of Failure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255367700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Deep down, I think that the real reason that Vista flopped was the absence of "Windows Vista Parties".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Deep down , I think that the real reason that Vista flopped was the absence of " Windows Vista Parties " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Deep down, I think that the real reason that Vista flopped was the absence of "Windows Vista Parties".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719471</id>
	<title>never liked vistaids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255365480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I first installed Vista on my MS box it didn't last more than a few hours before I reformatted my new drive along with some colourful language and went back to XP. I've never touched it since and find it infuriating to use. I think the coined phrase "vista aids" very appropriate as it seems like an OS destined to die a painful death along with its users. I'm about to try windows 7 so we will see what happens then.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I first installed Vista on my MS box it did n't last more than a few hours before I reformatted my new drive along with some colourful language and went back to XP .
I 've never touched it since and find it infuriating to use .
I think the coined phrase " vista aids " very appropriate as it seems like an OS destined to die a painful death along with its users .
I 'm about to try windows 7 so we will see what happens then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I first installed Vista on my MS box it didn't last more than a few hours before I reformatted my new drive along with some colourful language and went back to XP.
I've never touched it since and find it infuriating to use.
I think the coined phrase "vista aids" very appropriate as it seems like an OS destined to die a painful death along with its users.
I'm about to try windows 7 so we will see what happens then.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720635</id>
	<title>As a Ubuntu fanboy...</title>
	<author>vorlich</author>
	<datestamp>1255370820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a grudging respect for XP professional edition that grew on me as I managed to turn off all of the rubbish and secure the system. I have not used it on since the Zone Alarm screw up, by which time I had migrated all my systems to Ubuntu. I just got completely fed up with the obscure methods of networking or anything to do with servers, apache and mysql - all much easier in the big U. I still use XP in a VM for my employers access database which really can't be migrated and since they are using Vista (comes with the new PCs) conversations about what to click on over the phone rapidly descend into farce.. (<i>with apologies to Vista professionals, which I imagine, there must be.</i>)
<br> "Ok click on Tools"
<br> "Where's that?"
<br> "It's in the menu bar,oh wait a minute you don't have that. Can you see it on the left hand panel?"
<br> "I can see the list of tables..."
<br> "No that's the wrong view. Is it in the blobby display along the top of the screen?"
<br> "What's the blobby display?"
<br> "All those sort of chunky yellow icons at the top of the access window."
<br> "Are they yellow?"
<br> "I'm not sure, I thought they were sort of yellow the last time I looked at your GUI."
<br> "My gooey? Where's that?"
<br> "It's okay, it's your screen, along the top of the window, they're about a centimetre tall and chunky."
<br> "No, I can't see anything called tools."
<br> "Try clicking on the big MS circle in the top left-hand corner of the screen."
<br> "A circle? I don't have a circle."
<br> "It's a 3D ball, in blue with the Microsoft logo."
<br> "What's a logo?"
<br> "Hello, are you from the past?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a grudging respect for XP professional edition that grew on me as I managed to turn off all of the rubbish and secure the system .
I have not used it on since the Zone Alarm screw up , by which time I had migrated all my systems to Ubuntu .
I just got completely fed up with the obscure methods of networking or anything to do with servers , apache and mysql - all much easier in the big U. I still use XP in a VM for my employers access database which really ca n't be migrated and since they are using Vista ( comes with the new PCs ) conversations about what to click on over the phone rapidly descend into farce.. ( with apologies to Vista professionals , which I imagine , there must be .
) " Ok click on Tools " " Where 's that ?
" " It 's in the menu bar,oh wait a minute you do n't have that .
Can you see it on the left hand panel ?
" " I can see the list of tables... " " No that 's the wrong view .
Is it in the blobby display along the top of the screen ?
" " What 's the blobby display ?
" " All those sort of chunky yellow icons at the top of the access window .
" " Are they yellow ?
" " I 'm not sure , I thought they were sort of yellow the last time I looked at your GUI .
" " My gooey ?
Where 's that ?
" " It 's okay , it 's your screen , along the top of the window , they 're about a centimetre tall and chunky .
" " No , I ca n't see anything called tools .
" " Try clicking on the big MS circle in the top left-hand corner of the screen .
" " A circle ?
I do n't have a circle .
" " It 's a 3D ball , in blue with the Microsoft logo .
" " What 's a logo ?
" " Hello , are you from the past ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a grudging respect for XP professional edition that grew on me as I managed to turn off all of the rubbish and secure the system.
I have not used it on since the Zone Alarm screw up, by which time I had migrated all my systems to Ubuntu.
I just got completely fed up with the obscure methods of networking or anything to do with servers, apache and mysql - all much easier in the big U. I still use XP in a VM for my employers access database which really can't be migrated and since they are using Vista (comes with the new PCs) conversations about what to click on over the phone rapidly descend into farce.. (with apologies to Vista professionals, which I imagine, there must be.
)
 "Ok click on Tools"
 "Where's that?
"
 "It's in the menu bar,oh wait a minute you don't have that.
Can you see it on the left hand panel?
"
 "I can see the list of tables..."
 "No that's the wrong view.
Is it in the blobby display along the top of the screen?
"
 "What's the blobby display?
"
 "All those sort of chunky yellow icons at the top of the access window.
"
 "Are they yellow?
"
 "I'm not sure, I thought they were sort of yellow the last time I looked at your GUI.
"
 "My gooey?
Where's that?
"
 "It's okay, it's your screen, along the top of the window, they're about a centimetre tall and chunky.
"
 "No, I can't see anything called tools.
"
 "Try clicking on the big MS circle in the top left-hand corner of the screen.
"
 "A circle?
I don't have a circle.
"
 "It's a 3D ball, in blue with the Microsoft logo.
"
 "What's a logo?
"
 "Hello, are you from the past?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29730045</id>
	<title>Re:Follow The Money (from TFA)</title>
	<author>Amiralul</author>
	<datestamp>1255434720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Forbes guys are a little bit confused here: the one with a liver problem works on a different company...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Forbes guys are a little bit confused here : the one with a liver problem works on a different company.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Forbes guys are a little bit confused here: the one with a liver problem works on a different company...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719579</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720349</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1255369560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I have no doubt that you'd be doing exactly the same if they were running Linux. No amount of technology can overcome user error.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I have no doubt that you 'd be doing exactly the same if they were running Linux .
No amount of technology can overcome user error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I have no doubt that you'd be doing exactly the same if they were running Linux.
No amount of technology can overcome user error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720439</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>Spad</author>
	<datestamp>1255369980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're planning to start moving our entire XP estate (~2500 machines) to Windows 7 over the next 6 months; XP Mode (Well, MED-V) finally provides us with a good answer to the problem of some shitty MS-DOS app that finance have been running for 17 years, that won't run on Vista/7 and uses a proprietary database whose structures were known only to a single man who died in 1994 leaving no documentation. At least until XP goes out of extended support in 2014.</p><p>As for Netbooks, they're a waste of space in the office environment; let's spend as much as a new desktop on a portable with low specs, very limited peripheral connectivity and a tiny screen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're planning to start moving our entire XP estate ( ~ 2500 machines ) to Windows 7 over the next 6 months ; XP Mode ( Well , MED-V ) finally provides us with a good answer to the problem of some shitty MS-DOS app that finance have been running for 17 years , that wo n't run on Vista/7 and uses a proprietary database whose structures were known only to a single man who died in 1994 leaving no documentation .
At least until XP goes out of extended support in 2014.As for Netbooks , they 're a waste of space in the office environment ; let 's spend as much as a new desktop on a portable with low specs , very limited peripheral connectivity and a tiny screen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're planning to start moving our entire XP estate (~2500 machines) to Windows 7 over the next 6 months; XP Mode (Well, MED-V) finally provides us with a good answer to the problem of some shitty MS-DOS app that finance have been running for 17 years, that won't run on Vista/7 and uses a proprietary database whose structures were known only to a single man who died in 1994 leaving no documentation.
At least until XP goes out of extended support in 2014.As for Netbooks, they're a waste of space in the office environment; let's spend as much as a new desktop on a portable with low specs, very limited peripheral connectivity and a tiny screen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721033</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>SMOKEING</author>
	<datestamp>1255372380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it odd that having endured all the hardships of a desktop Linux of late 1990 (badly hinted fonts, hardware support, anyone?), now that things have by and large smoothed out, you call your effort... err... wasted. Takes a real man to admit being a sufferer for a decade.</p><p>Following up on your 'When I am using my computer' tune: Every day when I come to work, I bring the PC up from suspend, fetch whatever updates have been posted overnight, approve them, hit Enter, go get a cup of tea, come back and start working. At the end of the day, I suspend it. Next morning, the cycle continues. Where exactly is that 'it's too much work'?</p><p>From my six-year experience, after a more-than-usually-tolerable learning curve, consistent Linux users get a healthy, and ever increasing, return on the investment. Unless they flit from one distro to another every month, and always entertain the idea that Linux is somehow 'experimental' and always keep a serviceable XP to fall back to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it odd that having endured all the hardships of a desktop Linux of late 1990 ( badly hinted fonts , hardware support , anyone ?
) , now that things have by and large smoothed out , you call your effort... err... wasted .
Takes a real man to admit being a sufferer for a decade.Following up on your 'When I am using my computer ' tune : Every day when I come to work , I bring the PC up from suspend , fetch whatever updates have been posted overnight , approve them , hit Enter , go get a cup of tea , come back and start working .
At the end of the day , I suspend it .
Next morning , the cycle continues .
Where exactly is that 'it 's too much work ' ? From my six-year experience , after a more-than-usually-tolerable learning curve , consistent Linux users get a healthy , and ever increasing , return on the investment .
Unless they flit from one distro to another every month , and always entertain the idea that Linux is somehow 'experimental ' and always keep a serviceable XP to fall back to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it odd that having endured all the hardships of a desktop Linux of late 1990 (badly hinted fonts, hardware support, anyone?
), now that things have by and large smoothed out, you call your effort... err... wasted.
Takes a real man to admit being a sufferer for a decade.Following up on your 'When I am using my computer' tune: Every day when I come to work, I bring the PC up from suspend, fetch whatever updates have been posted overnight, approve them, hit Enter, go get a cup of tea, come back and start working.
At the end of the day, I suspend it.
Next morning, the cycle continues.
Where exactly is that 'it's too much work'?From my six-year experience, after a more-than-usually-tolerable learning curve, consistent Linux users get a healthy, and ever increasing, return on the investment.
Unless they flit from one distro to another every month, and always entertain the idea that Linux is somehow 'experimental' and always keep a serviceable XP to fall back to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720151</id>
	<title>Re:Main Problem With Vista Was It Instantly Annoye</title>
	<author>gravis777</author>
	<datestamp>1255368600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um, yeah, but in its defense, there is quite a bit in Linux you cannot do unless you do an su or log in as root. Go ahead and try installing a video driver or something in Linux as a standard user, and see what happens.</p><p>Also, it takes a whole 15 seconds to turn UAC off, so that is a poor argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um , yeah , but in its defense , there is quite a bit in Linux you can not do unless you do an su or log in as root .
Go ahead and try installing a video driver or something in Linux as a standard user , and see what happens.Also , it takes a whole 15 seconds to turn UAC off , so that is a poor argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um, yeah, but in its defense, there is quite a bit in Linux you cannot do unless you do an su or log in as root.
Go ahead and try installing a video driver or something in Linux as a standard user, and see what happens.Also, it takes a whole 15 seconds to turn UAC off, so that is a poor argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723195</id>
	<title>Standard WiFi networking introduced in XPSP2!</title>
	<author>bornagainpenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1255380720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously.  Have you tried it?  A major improvement over every vendor slopping their own clunky interface together, the only thing I've used that comes close is the Network Manager in Ubuntu.  Otherwise Windows XP is rather spartan in value and the best part of Vista (the Windows Sidebar) can be <a href="http://lifehacker.com/5089081/install-the-windows-vista-sidebar-in-xp" title="lifehacker.com">backported</a> [lifehacker.com] to Windows XP but needs to run in two instances of memory!<br>
<br>
Truthfully there really isn't anything not possible in Windows 2000 you'd need to upgrade for that isn't an external limitation imposed by Microsoft in gambit to force upgrades.  The lack of updates?  That's a choice Microsoft made in order to force people to "upgrade" to Windows XP and higher.  This includes system components like Direct X and driver issues by corporations seeking people to purchase new hardware, while not wanting to support older hardware that still works.  Much of the above is artificial though and can be worked around by way of using <a href="http://win2kgaming.site90.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=7" title="site90.com">modified dll thunking</a> [site90.com] to get those things running on Windows 2000 despite supposedly not being capable of performing in that operating system.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile I've found I can pretty much get all the features of Windows XP and Vista by upgrading to Linux and making use of Wine to run some of my applications and by using more and more native Linux applications as I go on.  This way I get all the cool toys (Compiz with Virtual Desktops is something you'll never want to give up once you start using it) and still stay within reasonable memory usage.  I have an entire gig of RAM on my desktop and my netbook--I have yet to see either exceed 500mbs despite doing things that would easily have me hitting the swap file in Windows XP or 2000.<br>
<br>
So there are options forward, but if Windows 2000 works for you and you don't need cleartype or use WiFi you shouldn't upgrade until you hit the application availability and lack of security updates wall.  Personally I think it sucks we should have to make these kinds of choices at all, but at least with Windows 2000 you still have those options.  Once Microsoft decides to stop activating our copies of Windows XP I expect there will be a lot of people in for a world of hurt!<br>
<br>
--bornagainpenguin</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously .
Have you tried it ?
A major improvement over every vendor slopping their own clunky interface together , the only thing I 've used that comes close is the Network Manager in Ubuntu .
Otherwise Windows XP is rather spartan in value and the best part of Vista ( the Windows Sidebar ) can be backported [ lifehacker.com ] to Windows XP but needs to run in two instances of memory !
Truthfully there really is n't anything not possible in Windows 2000 you 'd need to upgrade for that is n't an external limitation imposed by Microsoft in gambit to force upgrades .
The lack of updates ?
That 's a choice Microsoft made in order to force people to " upgrade " to Windows XP and higher .
This includes system components like Direct X and driver issues by corporations seeking people to purchase new hardware , while not wanting to support older hardware that still works .
Much of the above is artificial though and can be worked around by way of using modified dll thunking [ site90.com ] to get those things running on Windows 2000 despite supposedly not being capable of performing in that operating system .
Meanwhile I 've found I can pretty much get all the features of Windows XP and Vista by upgrading to Linux and making use of Wine to run some of my applications and by using more and more native Linux applications as I go on .
This way I get all the cool toys ( Compiz with Virtual Desktops is something you 'll never want to give up once you start using it ) and still stay within reasonable memory usage .
I have an entire gig of RAM on my desktop and my netbook--I have yet to see either exceed 500mbs despite doing things that would easily have me hitting the swap file in Windows XP or 2000 .
So there are options forward , but if Windows 2000 works for you and you do n't need cleartype or use WiFi you should n't upgrade until you hit the application availability and lack of security updates wall .
Personally I think it sucks we should have to make these kinds of choices at all , but at least with Windows 2000 you still have those options .
Once Microsoft decides to stop activating our copies of Windows XP I expect there will be a lot of people in for a world of hurt !
--bornagainpenguin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously.
Have you tried it?
A major improvement over every vendor slopping their own clunky interface together, the only thing I've used that comes close is the Network Manager in Ubuntu.
Otherwise Windows XP is rather spartan in value and the best part of Vista (the Windows Sidebar) can be backported [lifehacker.com] to Windows XP but needs to run in two instances of memory!
Truthfully there really isn't anything not possible in Windows 2000 you'd need to upgrade for that isn't an external limitation imposed by Microsoft in gambit to force upgrades.
The lack of updates?
That's a choice Microsoft made in order to force people to "upgrade" to Windows XP and higher.
This includes system components like Direct X and driver issues by corporations seeking people to purchase new hardware, while not wanting to support older hardware that still works.
Much of the above is artificial though and can be worked around by way of using modified dll thunking [site90.com] to get those things running on Windows 2000 despite supposedly not being capable of performing in that operating system.
Meanwhile I've found I can pretty much get all the features of Windows XP and Vista by upgrading to Linux and making use of Wine to run some of my applications and by using more and more native Linux applications as I go on.
This way I get all the cool toys (Compiz with Virtual Desktops is something you'll never want to give up once you start using it) and still stay within reasonable memory usage.
I have an entire gig of RAM on my desktop and my netbook--I have yet to see either exceed 500mbs despite doing things that would easily have me hitting the swap file in Windows XP or 2000.
So there are options forward, but if Windows 2000 works for you and you don't need cleartype or use WiFi you shouldn't upgrade until you hit the application availability and lack of security updates wall.
Personally I think it sucks we should have to make these kinds of choices at all, but at least with Windows 2000 you still have those options.
Once Microsoft decides to stop activating our copies of Windows XP I expect there will be a lot of people in for a world of hurt!
--bornagainpenguin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29726677</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>camperslo</author>
	<datestamp>1255353600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>* Change Ubuntu Linux's resolution to 640x480.<br>Now change it back without using secret,<br>hidden key commands. It can't be done.<br>That's a non-user-friendly design.</i></p><p>If you're running Ubuntu in Virtual Box the Display control panel does downsize but not upsize the Window as you say, because it adjusts its upper limit to whatever the window size is.  But no hidden trickery is needed to resize.  A feature of the VBOXadditions driver allows you to just grab the lower right window corner and drag to resize it to whatever you want on the fly, including values between the traditional resolutions.<br>Ubuntu 9.04 and the 9.10 beta have worked well for me in Virtual Box 3.0.8 on Snow Leopard.  Check to see that you're up to date with Virtual Box (it seems to be getting updates about once a month) and have the VBOXadditions installed for inside-the-guest enhancements with some of the more popular OSes.  You get simple smooth transitions of the cursor when moving between host and guest, the video driver with dynamic resizing, and support for shared folders.  I have not tried the acceleration pass-through in the Virtual Box Ubuntu video driver.</p><p>If you didn't leave out the drivers, there should be no need to resort to adding resolutions through editing of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/X11/xorg.conf.  But those that might want to do that with other hardware can find simple instructions in the Ubuntu forums.</p><p>As I suspect is the case with many here, I've often been called upon when friends have had problems with Windows, mostly XP.  It's usually malware related.  I've found that many of them just use their machines for browsing, email, IM, light word processing, and sometimes games.  For those not using games, instead of a format/restore, I've been installing Ubuntu.  For those into heavy gaming, I've set them up to dual boot and taught them not to use the browser or mail at all in Windows.</p><p>So far all have been happy with Ubuntu.  People really seem to appreciate the Ubuntu security that keeps guests/children from installing software, and "Guest Session" which also keeps them away from personal files and settings.<br>Using Windows only for gaming seems to be enough to avoid the frequent malware problems.<br>For those getting new machines, Win 7 is a welcome security improvement over XP.  But Vista/Win7 are generally not compelling enough to justify the expense of a new machine or even the software.  Most hardware running XP can handle Ubuntu well, since it is far less demanding than Vista or Win 7. Some machines need some RAM, but that's usually cheap.<br>At least among those I see, most wanting new hardware have been going with Macs instead. Old PCs sometimes live on for Windows games or Ubuntu surfing (just to have another box available)</p><p>Ubuntu: The New Efficiency!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Change Ubuntu Linux 's resolution to 640x480.Now change it back without using secret,hidden key commands .
It ca n't be done.That 's a non-user-friendly design.If you 're running Ubuntu in Virtual Box the Display control panel does downsize but not upsize the Window as you say , because it adjusts its upper limit to whatever the window size is .
But no hidden trickery is needed to resize .
A feature of the VBOXadditions driver allows you to just grab the lower right window corner and drag to resize it to whatever you want on the fly , including values between the traditional resolutions.Ubuntu 9.04 and the 9.10 beta have worked well for me in Virtual Box 3.0.8 on Snow Leopard .
Check to see that you 're up to date with Virtual Box ( it seems to be getting updates about once a month ) and have the VBOXadditions installed for inside-the-guest enhancements with some of the more popular OSes .
You get simple smooth transitions of the cursor when moving between host and guest , the video driver with dynamic resizing , and support for shared folders .
I have not tried the acceleration pass-through in the Virtual Box Ubuntu video driver.If you did n't leave out the drivers , there should be no need to resort to adding resolutions through editing of /etc/X11/xorg.conf .
But those that might want to do that with other hardware can find simple instructions in the Ubuntu forums.As I suspect is the case with many here , I 've often been called upon when friends have had problems with Windows , mostly XP .
It 's usually malware related .
I 've found that many of them just use their machines for browsing , email , IM , light word processing , and sometimes games .
For those not using games , instead of a format/restore , I 've been installing Ubuntu .
For those into heavy gaming , I 've set them up to dual boot and taught them not to use the browser or mail at all in Windows.So far all have been happy with Ubuntu .
People really seem to appreciate the Ubuntu security that keeps guests/children from installing software , and " Guest Session " which also keeps them away from personal files and settings.Using Windows only for gaming seems to be enough to avoid the frequent malware problems.For those getting new machines , Win 7 is a welcome security improvement over XP .
But Vista/Win7 are generally not compelling enough to justify the expense of a new machine or even the software .
Most hardware running XP can handle Ubuntu well , since it is far less demanding than Vista or Win 7 .
Some machines need some RAM , but that 's usually cheap.At least among those I see , most wanting new hardware have been going with Macs instead .
Old PCs sometimes live on for Windows games or Ubuntu surfing ( just to have another box available ) Ubuntu : The New Efficiency !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Change Ubuntu Linux's resolution to 640x480.Now change it back without using secret,hidden key commands.
It can't be done.That's a non-user-friendly design.If you're running Ubuntu in Virtual Box the Display control panel does downsize but not upsize the Window as you say, because it adjusts its upper limit to whatever the window size is.
But no hidden trickery is needed to resize.
A feature of the VBOXadditions driver allows you to just grab the lower right window corner and drag to resize it to whatever you want on the fly, including values between the traditional resolutions.Ubuntu 9.04 and the 9.10 beta have worked well for me in Virtual Box 3.0.8 on Snow Leopard.
Check to see that you're up to date with Virtual Box (it seems to be getting updates about once a month) and have the VBOXadditions installed for inside-the-guest enhancements with some of the more popular OSes.
You get simple smooth transitions of the cursor when moving between host and guest, the video driver with dynamic resizing, and support for shared folders.
I have not tried the acceleration pass-through in the Virtual Box Ubuntu video driver.If you didn't leave out the drivers, there should be no need to resort to adding resolutions through editing of /etc/X11/xorg.conf.
But those that might want to do that with other hardware can find simple instructions in the Ubuntu forums.As I suspect is the case with many here, I've often been called upon when friends have had problems with Windows, mostly XP.
It's usually malware related.
I've found that many of them just use their machines for browsing, email, IM, light word processing, and sometimes games.
For those not using games, instead of a format/restore, I've been installing Ubuntu.
For those into heavy gaming, I've set them up to dual boot and taught them not to use the browser or mail at all in Windows.So far all have been happy with Ubuntu.
People really seem to appreciate the Ubuntu security that keeps guests/children from installing software, and "Guest Session" which also keeps them away from personal files and settings.Using Windows only for gaming seems to be enough to avoid the frequent malware problems.For those getting new machines, Win 7 is a welcome security improvement over XP.
But Vista/Win7 are generally not compelling enough to justify the expense of a new machine or even the software.
Most hardware running XP can handle Ubuntu well, since it is far less demanding than Vista or Win 7.
Some machines need some RAM, but that's usually cheap.At least among those I see, most wanting new hardware have been going with Macs instead.
Old PCs sometimes live on for Windows games or Ubuntu surfing (just to have another box available)Ubuntu: The New Efficiency!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719977</id>
	<title>The major problem I have with Vista</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1255367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is that it does not run Windows legacy software like Windows XP and earlier versions did.</p><p>My brother is a Gamer, and he bought a Windows Vista Home Premium Laptop, it would not run his old games like Warlords IV and we tried a VirtualBox machine with Windows XP Pro in it but it had limited 3D support and Warlords IV would not run under it. His only option is to run Warlords IV on his old Windows XP Pro desktop, but then he cannot take the game with him on his laptop.</p><p>Not just Gamers are affected, but business owners. Many have custom written software they paid for development on older versions of Windows or even MS-DOS that Windows Vista won't run. Some software needs special hardware that does not have drivers for Windows Vista and the XP drivers don't work too well in Windows Vista. Windows Vista does not have hardware drivers for a lot of legacy hardware and thus many machines even if they meet the RAM, CPU, Video, and Hard Drive requirements cannot run Vista without the needed hardware that lacks drivers.</p><p>For example my son's Windows XP Pro system has a Texas Instruments Wireless adapter, and Windows Vista and Windows 7 lack a proper driver for it. TI never made a Vista or 7 driver, and neither did Microsoft. So in upgrading him to Windows 7 I'd need to buy a new wireless card. Now if it was a hardware dongle, TV tuner, AM/FM Radio card, or multiple port serial port adapter that lacked Vista or 7 drivers it would be more expensive to buy a newer one to replace the older one. In that case most people just stick with an older version of Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is that it does not run Windows legacy software like Windows XP and earlier versions did.My brother is a Gamer , and he bought a Windows Vista Home Premium Laptop , it would not run his old games like Warlords IV and we tried a VirtualBox machine with Windows XP Pro in it but it had limited 3D support and Warlords IV would not run under it .
His only option is to run Warlords IV on his old Windows XP Pro desktop , but then he can not take the game with him on his laptop.Not just Gamers are affected , but business owners .
Many have custom written software they paid for development on older versions of Windows or even MS-DOS that Windows Vista wo n't run .
Some software needs special hardware that does not have drivers for Windows Vista and the XP drivers do n't work too well in Windows Vista .
Windows Vista does not have hardware drivers for a lot of legacy hardware and thus many machines even if they meet the RAM , CPU , Video , and Hard Drive requirements can not run Vista without the needed hardware that lacks drivers.For example my son 's Windows XP Pro system has a Texas Instruments Wireless adapter , and Windows Vista and Windows 7 lack a proper driver for it .
TI never made a Vista or 7 driver , and neither did Microsoft .
So in upgrading him to Windows 7 I 'd need to buy a new wireless card .
Now if it was a hardware dongle , TV tuner , AM/FM Radio card , or multiple port serial port adapter that lacked Vista or 7 drivers it would be more expensive to buy a newer one to replace the older one .
In that case most people just stick with an older version of Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that it does not run Windows legacy software like Windows XP and earlier versions did.My brother is a Gamer, and he bought a Windows Vista Home Premium Laptop, it would not run his old games like Warlords IV and we tried a VirtualBox machine with Windows XP Pro in it but it had limited 3D support and Warlords IV would not run under it.
His only option is to run Warlords IV on his old Windows XP Pro desktop, but then he cannot take the game with him on his laptop.Not just Gamers are affected, but business owners.
Many have custom written software they paid for development on older versions of Windows or even MS-DOS that Windows Vista won't run.
Some software needs special hardware that does not have drivers for Windows Vista and the XP drivers don't work too well in Windows Vista.
Windows Vista does not have hardware drivers for a lot of legacy hardware and thus many machines even if they meet the RAM, CPU, Video, and Hard Drive requirements cannot run Vista without the needed hardware that lacks drivers.For example my son's Windows XP Pro system has a Texas Instruments Wireless adapter, and Windows Vista and Windows 7 lack a proper driver for it.
TI never made a Vista or 7 driver, and neither did Microsoft.
So in upgrading him to Windows 7 I'd need to buy a new wireless card.
Now if it was a hardware dongle, TV tuner, AM/FM Radio card, or multiple port serial port adapter that lacked Vista or 7 drivers it would be more expensive to buy a newer one to replace the older one.
In that case most people just stick with an older version of Windows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</id>
	<title>Message control, message control, message control</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1255366260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology. The problem was that marketdroids severely understated Vista's hardware requirements, tried to segment the market too finely with too many editions, and outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability. What's what marketdroids do: they lie for profit.</p><p>But marketdroid lies notwithstanding, the underlying <i>technology</i> behind Vista wasn't bad: far from it, actually. For the first time, there's a half-decent security model for the average user. (I don't buy that UAC sucks.) There are a ton of kernel and API improvements behind the scenes. We have symlinks, even!</p><p>Sure, there were a couple release-day bugs, but every OS has those. XP had a similar number of pre-SP1 issues. And hell, it had fewer than the first version of RHEL5 (that OS paused for a full five minutes on every boot, polling SATA drives that never came, until a patch fixed the issue.)</p><p>The "Vista sucks" meme, however, spread virally because 1) we all love to hate Microsoft, and 2) most users really can't tell the difference between good technology and bad, but they can certainly parrot what their friends say. It doesn't help that Vista really did suck for some users who were running on underpowered hardware. (If you want to argue that Vista's hardware requirements are too high, we can do that, but Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designed.)</p><p>Really, Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim: in fact, that's precisely what they did. Since Vista's release, even low-end hardware has caught up to Vista's original requirements, so despite the inevitable lies from marketing, Vista^H^H^H^H^HWindows 7 will now run fine for a lot more people. The new name kills the old meme, and forces people to reconsider whether Vista sucks.</p><p>tl;dr: Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designed. In fact, it's a vast improvement. Marketing sucks for lying about what hardware you need for Vista, however, which put a bad taste in people's mouths.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology .
The problem was that marketdroids severely understated Vista 's hardware requirements , tried to segment the market too finely with too many editions , and outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability .
What 's what marketdroids do : they lie for profit.But marketdroid lies notwithstanding , the underlying technology behind Vista was n't bad : far from it , actually .
For the first time , there 's a half-decent security model for the average user .
( I do n't buy that UAC sucks .
) There are a ton of kernel and API improvements behind the scenes .
We have symlinks , even ! Sure , there were a couple release-day bugs , but every OS has those .
XP had a similar number of pre-SP1 issues .
And hell , it had fewer than the first version of RHEL5 ( that OS paused for a full five minutes on every boot , polling SATA drives that never came , until a patch fixed the issue .
) The " Vista sucks " meme , however , spread virally because 1 ) we all love to hate Microsoft , and 2 ) most users really ca n't tell the difference between good technology and bad , but they can certainly parrot what their friends say .
It does n't help that Vista really did suck for some users who were running on underpowered hardware .
( If you want to argue that Vista 's hardware requirements are too high , we can do that , but Vista does n't suck on the hardware for which it was designed .
) Really , Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim : in fact , that 's precisely what they did .
Since Vista 's release , even low-end hardware has caught up to Vista 's original requirements , so despite the inevitable lies from marketing , Vista ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ HWindows 7 will now run fine for a lot more people .
The new name kills the old meme , and forces people to reconsider whether Vista sucks.tl ; dr : Vista does n't suck on the hardware for which it was designed .
In fact , it 's a vast improvement .
Marketing sucks for lying about what hardware you need for Vista , however , which put a bad taste in people 's mouths .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology.
The problem was that marketdroids severely understated Vista's hardware requirements, tried to segment the market too finely with too many editions, and outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability.
What's what marketdroids do: they lie for profit.But marketdroid lies notwithstanding, the underlying technology behind Vista wasn't bad: far from it, actually.
For the first time, there's a half-decent security model for the average user.
(I don't buy that UAC sucks.
) There are a ton of kernel and API improvements behind the scenes.
We have symlinks, even!Sure, there were a couple release-day bugs, but every OS has those.
XP had a similar number of pre-SP1 issues.
And hell, it had fewer than the first version of RHEL5 (that OS paused for a full five minutes on every boot, polling SATA drives that never came, until a patch fixed the issue.
)The "Vista sucks" meme, however, spread virally because 1) we all love to hate Microsoft, and 2) most users really can't tell the difference between good technology and bad, but they can certainly parrot what their friends say.
It doesn't help that Vista really did suck for some users who were running on underpowered hardware.
(If you want to argue that Vista's hardware requirements are too high, we can do that, but Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designed.
)Really, Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim: in fact, that's precisely what they did.
Since Vista's release, even low-end hardware has caught up to Vista's original requirements, so despite the inevitable lies from marketing, Vista^H^H^H^H^HWindows 7 will now run fine for a lot more people.
The new name kills the old meme, and forces people to reconsider whether Vista sucks.tl;dr: Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designed.
In fact, it's a vast improvement.
Marketing sucks for lying about what hardware you need for Vista, however, which put a bad taste in people's mouths.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439</id>
	<title>Well color me savvy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255365360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Hey, Harry, you were writing and editing stories about Vista back when it came out, right? What did you say? Um, thanks for reminding me. I wrote quite a bit about Vista in my Techlog blog for PC World, and was smart enough to express caution about its significance and raise questions about compatibility issues, but not savvy enough to guess it would become a legendary flop. (Here's a post from March 2006 in which I'm fairly skeptical, but say "It...seems unlikely that it'll be a Windows Me-style fiasco." Wrong!)</i></p><p>I recall that I had plenty to say about the last quarter, last month, last day, last hour, last minute removal of features that made Vista interesting.  What was left was a Windows OS with a lot of hinderances and no benefits over the previous version of Windows.  It was one huge empty promise.  And I did, in fact say this was the new WindowsME.  And quite predictably, I was marked "troll" and "overrated" and heard no end of how wrong I was.  What I heard was that Vista was elegant and refined and that if the PC was too slow to handle it, it wasn't Vista's fault.</p><p>No one succeeded in changing my mind on the topic and it seems the masses, for once, agreed with me.  (How rare!)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , Harry , you were writing and editing stories about Vista back when it came out , right ?
What did you say ?
Um , thanks for reminding me .
I wrote quite a bit about Vista in my Techlog blog for PC World , and was smart enough to express caution about its significance and raise questions about compatibility issues , but not savvy enough to guess it would become a legendary flop .
( Here 's a post from March 2006 in which I 'm fairly skeptical , but say " It...seems unlikely that it 'll be a Windows Me-style fiasco .
" Wrong !
) I recall that I had plenty to say about the last quarter , last month , last day , last hour , last minute removal of features that made Vista interesting .
What was left was a Windows OS with a lot of hinderances and no benefits over the previous version of Windows .
It was one huge empty promise .
And I did , in fact say this was the new WindowsME .
And quite predictably , I was marked " troll " and " overrated " and heard no end of how wrong I was .
What I heard was that Vista was elegant and refined and that if the PC was too slow to handle it , it was n't Vista 's fault.No one succeeded in changing my mind on the topic and it seems the masses , for once , agreed with me .
( How rare !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, Harry, you were writing and editing stories about Vista back when it came out, right?
What did you say?
Um, thanks for reminding me.
I wrote quite a bit about Vista in my Techlog blog for PC World, and was smart enough to express caution about its significance and raise questions about compatibility issues, but not savvy enough to guess it would become a legendary flop.
(Here's a post from March 2006 in which I'm fairly skeptical, but say "It...seems unlikely that it'll be a Windows Me-style fiasco.
" Wrong!
)I recall that I had plenty to say about the last quarter, last month, last day, last hour, last minute removal of features that made Vista interesting.
What was left was a Windows OS with a lot of hinderances and no benefits over the previous version of Windows.
It was one huge empty promise.
And I did, in fact say this was the new WindowsME.
And quite predictably, I was marked "troll" and "overrated" and heard no end of how wrong I was.
What I heard was that Vista was elegant and refined and that if the PC was too slow to handle it, it wasn't Vista's fault.No one succeeded in changing my mind on the topic and it seems the masses, for once, agreed with me.
(How rare!
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722665</id>
	<title>Re:Message control, message control, message contr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255378380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Vista Sucks Meme spread because, for many people, it really did suck. There are a couple sharp lines in hardware requirements such that, if you exceed them all then Vista runs fine, but if you fall short on any one of them Vista runs poorly. It ran pretty much exactly as smooth as XP for me on a 4-year-old system (which I'd upgraded to 3 GB of RAM), but it ran like crap on a new laptop with a faster CPU and 2 GB of RAM - probably due to the standard 4krpm hard drive in it and Vista's penchant for super aggressive preloading. It'll also suck slightly if you have only 1 GB of RAM, and suck mightily if you're stuck with only 512. The thing is, when it came out, the 512 MB to 1 GB range was average to high end. (You could already get more memory at that time, but it was kinda unusual to do so since XP plus a heavy duty game would still run in under 1 GB).</p><p>On the other hand, Win7's beta in a VM under virtualbox in Ubuntu runs faster on my laptop than Vista ran on the bare metal. (And the XP VM runs decently, and the Win2K VM I put on there just for laughs runs unbelievably fast)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Vista Sucks Meme spread because , for many people , it really did suck .
There are a couple sharp lines in hardware requirements such that , if you exceed them all then Vista runs fine , but if you fall short on any one of them Vista runs poorly .
It ran pretty much exactly as smooth as XP for me on a 4-year-old system ( which I 'd upgraded to 3 GB of RAM ) , but it ran like crap on a new laptop with a faster CPU and 2 GB of RAM - probably due to the standard 4krpm hard drive in it and Vista 's penchant for super aggressive preloading .
It 'll also suck slightly if you have only 1 GB of RAM , and suck mightily if you 're stuck with only 512 .
The thing is , when it came out , the 512 MB to 1 GB range was average to high end .
( You could already get more memory at that time , but it was kinda unusual to do so since XP plus a heavy duty game would still run in under 1 GB ) .On the other hand , Win7 's beta in a VM under virtualbox in Ubuntu runs faster on my laptop than Vista ran on the bare metal .
( And the XP VM runs decently , and the Win2K VM I put on there just for laughs runs unbelievably fast )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Vista Sucks Meme spread because, for many people, it really did suck.
There are a couple sharp lines in hardware requirements such that, if you exceed them all then Vista runs fine, but if you fall short on any one of them Vista runs poorly.
It ran pretty much exactly as smooth as XP for me on a 4-year-old system (which I'd upgraded to 3 GB of RAM), but it ran like crap on a new laptop with a faster CPU and 2 GB of RAM - probably due to the standard 4krpm hard drive in it and Vista's penchant for super aggressive preloading.
It'll also suck slightly if you have only 1 GB of RAM, and suck mightily if you're stuck with only 512.
The thing is, when it came out, the 512 MB to 1 GB range was average to high end.
(You could already get more memory at that time, but it was kinda unusual to do so since XP plus a heavy duty game would still run in under 1 GB).On the other hand, Win7's beta in a VM under virtualbox in Ubuntu runs faster on my laptop than Vista ran on the bare metal.
(And the XP VM runs decently, and the Win2K VM I put on there just for laughs runs unbelievably fast)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720533</id>
	<title>The old new Windows version</title>
	<author>Prototerm</author>
	<datestamp>1255370340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's take a brief spin in Professor Peabody's Wayback Machine, shall we? When it first came out, I took the new version of Windows for a spin, and hated it. It required more resources than I felt it deserved (particularly memory). In addition to all the bloat, I thought the user interface was the ugliest I'd ever seen. Plus, it didn't give me anything I didn't already have with the old system. Other than some DRM, that is.</p><p>That new operating system was called XP. I decided to stick with 2000 Professional. I still use 2000 to this day for all my work and some games. I keep it away from the Internet (no browsing, and no email), and have no problems. Oh, and I'm still using Office 97 on it as well.</p><p>Now, tell me again why Windows 7 is so much better than Vista, when I don't even feel a need for XP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's take a brief spin in Professor Peabody 's Wayback Machine , shall we ?
When it first came out , I took the new version of Windows for a spin , and hated it .
It required more resources than I felt it deserved ( particularly memory ) .
In addition to all the bloat , I thought the user interface was the ugliest I 'd ever seen .
Plus , it did n't give me anything I did n't already have with the old system .
Other than some DRM , that is.That new operating system was called XP .
I decided to stick with 2000 Professional .
I still use 2000 to this day for all my work and some games .
I keep it away from the Internet ( no browsing , and no email ) , and have no problems .
Oh , and I 'm still using Office 97 on it as well.Now , tell me again why Windows 7 is so much better than Vista , when I do n't even feel a need for XP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's take a brief spin in Professor Peabody's Wayback Machine, shall we?
When it first came out, I took the new version of Windows for a spin, and hated it.
It required more resources than I felt it deserved (particularly memory).
In addition to all the bloat, I thought the user interface was the ugliest I'd ever seen.
Plus, it didn't give me anything I didn't already have with the old system.
Other than some DRM, that is.That new operating system was called XP.
I decided to stick with 2000 Professional.
I still use 2000 to this day for all my work and some games.
I keep it away from the Internet (no browsing, and no email), and have no problems.
Oh, and I'm still using Office 97 on it as well.Now, tell me again why Windows 7 is so much better than Vista, when I don't even feel a need for XP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723069</id>
	<title>UAC was written to make it the users fault</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255379940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UAC was written to make it the users fault not microsoft's.</p><p>Just like uninstalling and the "This DLL doesn't seem to be used. However, it may still be. Shall I remove it?".</p><p>How the FECK is the user supposed to know? If it showed something about when it was installed and what API it exposed, maybe they could answer (even if "it says adobe\_print\_finagle\_whoople() exported. I guess it's adobe's stuff").</p><p>It was done to make it the users fault if it failed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UAC was written to make it the users fault not microsoft 's.Just like uninstalling and the " This DLL does n't seem to be used .
However , it may still be .
Shall I remove it ?
" .How the FECK is the user supposed to know ?
If it showed something about when it was installed and what API it exposed , maybe they could answer ( even if " it says adobe \ _print \ _finagle \ _whoople ( ) exported .
I guess it 's adobe 's stuff " ) .It was done to make it the users fault if it failed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UAC was written to make it the users fault not microsoft's.Just like uninstalling and the "This DLL doesn't seem to be used.
However, it may still be.
Shall I remove it?
".How the FECK is the user supposed to know?
If it showed something about when it was installed and what API it exposed, maybe they could answer (even if "it says adobe\_print\_finagle\_whoople() exported.
I guess it's adobe's stuff").It was done to make it the users fault if it failed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720707</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719891</id>
	<title>Re:Well color me savvy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255367160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's awesome! Good for you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's awesome !
Good for you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's awesome!
Good for you!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1255365060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista ain't bad, and really Win7 isn't as different as Vista was to XP.  I tried very hard for 10 years to use Linux.  Not any more; it's too much work.  When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment.  So I'm happy using Windows at work, and Mac OS X at home.  Each to their own though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista ai n't bad , and really Win7 is n't as different as Vista was to XP .
I tried very hard for 10 years to use Linux .
Not any more ; it 's too much work .
When I 'm using my computer , I do n't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment .
So I 'm happy using Windows at work , and Mac OS X at home .
Each to their own though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista ain't bad, and really Win7 isn't as different as Vista was to XP.
I tried very hard for 10 years to use Linux.
Not any more; it's too much work.
When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment.
So I'm happy using Windows at work, and Mac OS X at home.
Each to their own though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721547</id>
	<title>Tired of Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255374000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Vista pushed me to Linux, so it's not all bad."<blockquote><div><p> <em>Well, last week I decided enough was enough. I was tired of the 7 and a 1/2 minute boot-up. I was tired of the random waiting after clicking on anything in nearly any program. I was generally tired of all the little nuances we take for granted in Windows. It was time to switch.
</em>
<br>
<a href="http://www.chriswiegman.com/2009/02/from-vista-to-linux-it-was-a-lot-easier-than-i-thought/" title="chriswiegman.com" rel="nofollow">From Vista to Linux (It was a lot easier than I thought)</a> [chriswiegman.com]</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Vista pushed me to Linux , so it 's not all bad .
" Well , last week I decided enough was enough .
I was tired of the 7 and a 1/2 minute boot-up .
I was tired of the random waiting after clicking on anything in nearly any program .
I was generally tired of all the little nuances we take for granted in Windows .
It was time to switch .
From Vista to Linux ( It was a lot easier than I thought ) [ chriswiegman.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Vista pushed me to Linux, so it's not all bad.
" Well, last week I decided enough was enough.
I was tired of the 7 and a 1/2 minute boot-up.
I was tired of the random waiting after clicking on anything in nearly any program.
I was generally tired of all the little nuances we take for granted in Windows.
It was time to switch.
From Vista to Linux (It was a lot easier than I thought) [chriswiegman.com]

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720233</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1255368900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, its true. We're a corporate (4000 users) and we had an email from the big boss saying "XP is the thing until further notice". So no Win7 for me, I'll just have to get used to working instead of playing with the shiny new toy.</p><p>Our customers also spec XP on their machines too, one large customer just refreshed their hardware<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... to XP, so they won;t be upgrading again for another 6 years or so.</p><p>I'd like to say its cost-cutting, but I think its more a lack of reason for change. Everything we need runs on XP so there's no reason to upgrade to Win7.</p><p>As for the future... Linux is bright as even MS is (finally) getting on the bandwagon of mobile devices. I think 5-10 years will see a significantly larger share of desktops being mobile devices instead of bolted-down desktop PCs. Few people care about the desktop now, they just want email and business apps on the move. Which will be hell for most business people's social life as their work will follow them around (like blackberry users have today) but that's what they want. so you'll see more apps being ported so they can run on a mobile device - I even saw a crap advert for Windows claiming how wonderful it was all your old favorites could now run on a windows smartphone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , its true .
We 're a corporate ( 4000 users ) and we had an email from the big boss saying " XP is the thing until further notice " .
So no Win7 for me , I 'll just have to get used to working instead of playing with the shiny new toy.Our customers also spec XP on their machines too , one large customer just refreshed their hardware ... to XP , so they won ; t be upgrading again for another 6 years or so.I 'd like to say its cost-cutting , but I think its more a lack of reason for change .
Everything we need runs on XP so there 's no reason to upgrade to Win7.As for the future... Linux is bright as even MS is ( finally ) getting on the bandwagon of mobile devices .
I think 5-10 years will see a significantly larger share of desktops being mobile devices instead of bolted-down desktop PCs .
Few people care about the desktop now , they just want email and business apps on the move .
Which will be hell for most business people 's social life as their work will follow them around ( like blackberry users have today ) but that 's what they want .
so you 'll see more apps being ported so they can run on a mobile device - I even saw a crap advert for Windows claiming how wonderful it was all your old favorites could now run on a windows smartphone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, its true.
We're a corporate (4000 users) and we had an email from the big boss saying "XP is the thing until further notice".
So no Win7 for me, I'll just have to get used to working instead of playing with the shiny new toy.Our customers also spec XP on their machines too, one large customer just refreshed their hardware ... to XP, so they won;t be upgrading again for another 6 years or so.I'd like to say its cost-cutting, but I think its more a lack of reason for change.
Everything we need runs on XP so there's no reason to upgrade to Win7.As for the future... Linux is bright as even MS is (finally) getting on the bandwagon of mobile devices.
I think 5-10 years will see a significantly larger share of desktops being mobile devices instead of bolted-down desktop PCs.
Few people care about the desktop now, they just want email and business apps on the move.
Which will be hell for most business people's social life as their work will follow them around (like blackberry users have today) but that's what they want.
so you'll see more apps being ported so they can run on a mobile device - I even saw a crap advert for Windows claiming how wonderful it was all your old favorites could now run on a windows smartphone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722631</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>ELitwin</author>
	<datestamp>1255378200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They let you use computers with Internet access in the asylum?</htmltext>
<tokenext>They let you use computers with Internet access in the asylum ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They let you use computers with Internet access in the asylum?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720663</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>IGnatius T Foobar</author>
	<datestamp>1255371000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>By which time, the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market. It will not be a stretch to predict that Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years in all Corporates where people exect their devices to boot instantly and work reliably consuming less resources like mobile phones.</p></div></blockquote><p>Exactly.  What the trade rags seem to miss is that <b>Network Computing <i>*is* happening.</i> </b>   It isn't happening nearly as quickly as its proponents trumpeted that it would.  It isn't happening in the way that it was originally envisioned (how many of you have a 'network computer' running only Java software?).  But it <i>is</i> happening.  The shift to server-side computing is in progress and unstoppable.<br> <br>And don't bother with the usual of chorus of "baaaaaaahhhhhhhhh you will never be able to run Photoshop in teh browser!!!!!1" either.  The vast majority of corporate computing tasks involve the type of knowledge management activities that ran perfectly in a 3270 terminal a few decades ago, and never needed a desktop computer in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By which time , the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market .
It will not be a stretch to predict that Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years in all Corporates where people exect their devices to boot instantly and work reliably consuming less resources like mobile phones.Exactly .
What the trade rags seem to miss is that Network Computing * is * happening .
It is n't happening nearly as quickly as its proponents trumpeted that it would .
It is n't happening in the way that it was originally envisioned ( how many of you have a 'network computer ' running only Java software ? ) .
But it is happening .
The shift to server-side computing is in progress and unstoppable .
And do n't bother with the usual of chorus of " baaaaaaahhhhhhhhh you will never be able to run Photoshop in teh browser ! ! ! !
! 1 " either .
The vast majority of corporate computing tasks involve the type of knowledge management activities that ran perfectly in a 3270 terminal a few decades ago , and never needed a desktop computer in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By which time, the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market.
It will not be a stretch to predict that Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years in all Corporates where people exect their devices to boot instantly and work reliably consuming less resources like mobile phones.Exactly.
What the trade rags seem to miss is that Network Computing *is* happening.
It isn't happening nearly as quickly as its proponents trumpeted that it would.
It isn't happening in the way that it was originally envisioned (how many of you have a 'network computer' running only Java software?).
But it is happening.
The shift to server-side computing is in progress and unstoppable.
And don't bother with the usual of chorus of "baaaaaaahhhhhhhhh you will never be able to run Photoshop in teh browser!!!!
!1" either.
The vast majority of corporate computing tasks involve the type of knowledge management activities that ran perfectly in a 3270 terminal a few decades ago, and never needed a desktop computer in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719353</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>O('\_')O\_Bush</author>
	<datestamp>1255364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Same here. I didn't start using Ubuntu as my main OS until my Win XP install on my tablet got utterly destroyed by a virus and my only other MS options were to re-install XP, risk the same vulnerability or move to Vista.<br><br>I chose neither.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here .
I did n't start using Ubuntu as my main OS until my Win XP install on my tablet got utterly destroyed by a virus and my only other MS options were to re-install XP , risk the same vulnerability or move to Vista.I chose neither .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here.
I didn't start using Ubuntu as my main OS until my Win XP install on my tablet got utterly destroyed by a virus and my only other MS options were to re-install XP, risk the same vulnerability or move to Vista.I chose neither.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29727953</id>
	<title>Re:The major problem I have with Vista</title>
	<author>Slavik81</author>
	<datestamp>1255363140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>is that it does not run Windows legacy software like Windows XP and earlier versions did.</p><p>My brother is a Gamer, and he bought a Windows Vista Home Premium Laptop, it would not run his old games like Warlords IV and we tried a VirtualBox machine with Windows XP Pro in it but it had limited 3D support and Warlords IV would not run under it. His only option is to run Warlords IV on his old Windows XP Pro desktop, but then he cannot take the game with him on his laptop.</p></div><p>Have you tried installing in compatibility mode? <a href="http://forums.infinite-interactive.com/showthread.php?t=1374" title="infinite-interactive.com" rel="nofollow">A post on their forums</a> [infinite-interactive.com] suggests that it would work. Or, at least up to version 1.05.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>is that it does not run Windows legacy software like Windows XP and earlier versions did.My brother is a Gamer , and he bought a Windows Vista Home Premium Laptop , it would not run his old games like Warlords IV and we tried a VirtualBox machine with Windows XP Pro in it but it had limited 3D support and Warlords IV would not run under it .
His only option is to run Warlords IV on his old Windows XP Pro desktop , but then he can not take the game with him on his laptop.Have you tried installing in compatibility mode ?
A post on their forums [ infinite-interactive.com ] suggests that it would work .
Or , at least up to version 1.05 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is that it does not run Windows legacy software like Windows XP and earlier versions did.My brother is a Gamer, and he bought a Windows Vista Home Premium Laptop, it would not run his old games like Warlords IV and we tried a VirtualBox machine with Windows XP Pro in it but it had limited 3D support and Warlords IV would not run under it.
His only option is to run Warlords IV on his old Windows XP Pro desktop, but then he cannot take the game with him on his laptop.Have you tried installing in compatibility mode?
A post on their forums [infinite-interactive.com] suggests that it would work.
Or, at least up to version 1.05.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719367</id>
	<title>"Some were downright enthusiastic."</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1255365000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Advertisements usually are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Advertisements usually are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Advertisements usually are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720453</id>
	<title>Re:Message control, message control, message contr</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1255369980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The problem was that marketdroids severely understated Vista's hardware requirements, tried to segment the market too finely with too many editions, and outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability.</p></div><p>I don't think that was the whole problem.  Yes, that was a problem: Vista did not perform well on all the machines that were advertised as being supported by Vista.  However, that also indicates that there was another problem: Vista's hardware requirements were too high for the time when it was released.
</p><p>There's also the too-many-editions problem.  Home vs. Business vs. Server is about as much of a breakdown as I'm willing to entertain.  Also, I won't put up with having to activate my OS under any circumstances.  But those are just my views, admittedly, and those weren't really the problem either.
</p><p>I'd like to claim (and have been claiming since Vista came out) that the big problem is that there wasn't a big enough problem with Windows XP.  Or to be more direct, of any of the problems people actually had with Windows XP, Vista didn't solve enough of them to make it worth the trouble of upgrading, let alone the cost of buying new licenses.
</p><p>I had some free upgrades to Vista available, and never used them.  I tested it, but there were compatibility issues with hardware and 3rd party software, and there was nothing Windows Vista did that Windows XP didn't that I needed to do.  Vista itself was fine, but upgrading would have meant a whole lot of trouble for me, and the only benefit I could see from upgrading was a cooler-looking interface.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem was that marketdroids severely understated Vista 's hardware requirements , tried to segment the market too finely with too many editions , and outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability.I do n't think that was the whole problem .
Yes , that was a problem : Vista did not perform well on all the machines that were advertised as being supported by Vista .
However , that also indicates that there was another problem : Vista 's hardware requirements were too high for the time when it was released .
There 's also the too-many-editions problem .
Home vs. Business vs. Server is about as much of a breakdown as I 'm willing to entertain .
Also , I wo n't put up with having to activate my OS under any circumstances .
But those are just my views , admittedly , and those were n't really the problem either .
I 'd like to claim ( and have been claiming since Vista came out ) that the big problem is that there was n't a big enough problem with Windows XP .
Or to be more direct , of any of the problems people actually had with Windows XP , Vista did n't solve enough of them to make it worth the trouble of upgrading , let alone the cost of buying new licenses .
I had some free upgrades to Vista available , and never used them .
I tested it , but there were compatibility issues with hardware and 3rd party software , and there was nothing Windows Vista did that Windows XP did n't that I needed to do .
Vista itself was fine , but upgrading would have meant a whole lot of trouble for me , and the only benefit I could see from upgrading was a cooler-looking interface .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem was that marketdroids severely understated Vista's hardware requirements, tried to segment the market too finely with too many editions, and outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability.I don't think that was the whole problem.
Yes, that was a problem: Vista did not perform well on all the machines that were advertised as being supported by Vista.
However, that also indicates that there was another problem: Vista's hardware requirements were too high for the time when it was released.
There's also the too-many-editions problem.
Home vs. Business vs. Server is about as much of a breakdown as I'm willing to entertain.
Also, I won't put up with having to activate my OS under any circumstances.
But those are just my views, admittedly, and those weren't really the problem either.
I'd like to claim (and have been claiming since Vista came out) that the big problem is that there wasn't a big enough problem with Windows XP.
Or to be more direct, of any of the problems people actually had with Windows XP, Vista didn't solve enough of them to make it worth the trouble of upgrading, let alone the cost of buying new licenses.
I had some free upgrades to Vista available, and never used them.
I tested it, but there were compatibility issues with hardware and 3rd party software, and there was nothing Windows Vista did that Windows XP didn't that I needed to do.
Vista itself was fine, but upgrading would have meant a whole lot of trouble for me, and the only benefit I could see from upgrading was a cooler-looking interface.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29732917</id>
	<title>Re:tl;dr, no one cares, but here's mine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255453560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks for the list!</p><p>To add little bits:<br>* With Vista, MS moved "C:\Obscure\Documents &amp; Settings\path\" to "C:\Users\" which is a nice thing(TM). To keep some compatibility, the file system uses "junctions" (=symlinks?) to automatically redirect applications to the new locations. The old entries still show up in Explorer, but Explorer doesn't understand them and pops up the most annoying, most useless error message when you double click them: "Access denied". Yes, even after getting access from UAC. Come on! Explorer should take me to the new location if this is a default file system feature. This problem goes away, when you have "Hide Invisible files" on, since the junctions are hidden (iirc).</p><p>* When I start explorer.exe with UAC admin rights, I do not want a single UAC question from explorer.exe anymore. However, it seems like explorer likes to drop all rights asap after it has been started. This doesn't really matter much, unless you try to sort the start menu<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>To end this with something positive: I was impressed by Vista's ability to restart the video driver if it crashed.</p><p>Regards<br>Daniel D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks for the list ! To add little bits : * With Vista , MS moved " C : \ Obscure \ Documents &amp; Settings \ path \ " to " C : \ Users \ " which is a nice thing ( TM ) .
To keep some compatibility , the file system uses " junctions " ( = symlinks ?
) to automatically redirect applications to the new locations .
The old entries still show up in Explorer , but Explorer does n't understand them and pops up the most annoying , most useless error message when you double click them : " Access denied " .
Yes , even after getting access from UAC .
Come on !
Explorer should take me to the new location if this is a default file system feature .
This problem goes away , when you have " Hide Invisible files " on , since the junctions are hidden ( iirc ) .
* When I start explorer.exe with UAC admin rights , I do not want a single UAC question from explorer.exe anymore .
However , it seems like explorer likes to drop all rights asap after it has been started .
This does n't really matter much , unless you try to sort the start menu ...To end this with something positive : I was impressed by Vista 's ability to restart the video driver if it crashed.RegardsDaniel D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks for the list!To add little bits:* With Vista, MS moved "C:\Obscure\Documents &amp; Settings\path\" to "C:\Users\" which is a nice thing(TM).
To keep some compatibility, the file system uses "junctions" (=symlinks?
) to automatically redirect applications to the new locations.
The old entries still show up in Explorer, but Explorer doesn't understand them and pops up the most annoying, most useless error message when you double click them: "Access denied".
Yes, even after getting access from UAC.
Come on!
Explorer should take me to the new location if this is a default file system feature.
This problem goes away, when you have "Hide Invisible files" on, since the junctions are hidden (iirc).
* When I start explorer.exe with UAC admin rights, I do not want a single UAC question from explorer.exe anymore.
However, it seems like explorer likes to drop all rights asap after it has been started.
This doesn't really matter much, unless you try to sort the start menu ...To end this with something positive: I was impressed by Vista's ability to restart the video driver if it crashed.RegardsDaniel D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720443</id>
	<title>Re:Painful decision</title>
	<author>Stonent1</author>
	<datestamp>1255369980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then there was the Intel GMA91x / VIsta Capable fiasco where a large percentage of laptops and computers that were fairly recent did not have the hardware capability to run Aero Glass.  Despite the somewhat steep hardware requiremnts that Aero Glass had, I find it funny that there are even more cool effects than Aero Glass has under Linux with Compiz Fusion despite being based on an old OpenGL implementation.  In fact, I've shown people how "this laptop can't run Aero Glass but it can do this" and then I rotate the screen or set a terminal window on fire.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then there was the Intel GMA91x / VIsta Capable fiasco where a large percentage of laptops and computers that were fairly recent did not have the hardware capability to run Aero Glass .
Despite the somewhat steep hardware requiremnts that Aero Glass had , I find it funny that there are even more cool effects than Aero Glass has under Linux with Compiz Fusion despite being based on an old OpenGL implementation .
In fact , I 've shown people how " this laptop ca n't run Aero Glass but it can do this " and then I rotate the screen or set a terminal window on fire .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then there was the Intel GMA91x / VIsta Capable fiasco where a large percentage of laptops and computers that were fairly recent did not have the hardware capability to run Aero Glass.
Despite the somewhat steep hardware requiremnts that Aero Glass had, I find it funny that there are even more cool effects than Aero Glass has under Linux with Compiz Fusion despite being based on an old OpenGL implementation.
In fact, I've shown people how "this laptop can't run Aero Glass but it can do this" and then I rotate the screen or set a terminal window on fire.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719343</id>
	<title>No thanks, MS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm still using XP. Vista has nothing to offer me, neither has W7.</p><p>Next, I'll be using Ubuntu.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm still using XP .
Vista has nothing to offer me , neither has W7.Next , I 'll be using Ubuntu .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm still using XP.
Vista has nothing to offer me, neither has W7.Next, I'll be using Ubuntu.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720707</id>
	<title>Re:Message control, message control, message contr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255371120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're *almost* right.</p><p>1) I disagree about UAC. I was only ever able to be happy with Vista after I turned UAC off. Effectively, it gives you a chance to say 'no' to something running, which isn't a bad thing, but for users who know what they are doing, generally they know what's installed on their systems, and what's running, already, and don't need an additional 'grant permission' window. For users who don't really understand much about computers, they have no real notion of whether something *should* be allowed or not, so they're either going to deny things they shouldn't (then wonder why something isn't working right), or allow everything, at which point UAC has given them extra prompts for no *actual* security benefit.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; UAC also has the drawback of, potentially, extra user confusion in terms of where files are stored. What do I mean? There are a number of programs which, right or wrong (mostly wrong), store data files in their "Program Files" program directory (e.g. c:\Program Files\Publisher\ProgramName\Data). Now, with UAC turned on, when programs try to do that, the files will actually be saved into the user's profile directory (in a sort of 'mirror' of the program files directory structure).  Now, on the surface, that seems like a great idea, BUT - if the user then goes to a manual or tech support page which says that the data files are located in c:\Program Files\Publisher\ProgramName\Data, they might not backup their data correctly (in an ideal world, every user's userprofile directory would also be backed up, but the world isn't always ideal).</p><p>2) Part of the problem isn't just marketting - it's that Microsoft designed a system whose minimum requirements were far beyond what almost all but a small percentage of existing systems had, at the time. Most people expect that a year or two old system should reasonably be able to upgrade to the latest release. Heck, brand new systems should have no problem.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Now, I know this is anecdotal, and so is not scientific proof or anything, but I think it does illustrate the problem pretty well - I bought a brand new Dell laptop right after Vista was released, which came with Vista. At this time, most computers, except for high-end gaming rigs and workstations used by people doing pretty high-end computing tasks, had about 512M RAM.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I decided to buy the laptop with 1G of RAM (I think I could have bought it with 2G, but I would have had to pay like an extra $150 or something - Dell likes to advertise systems cheap, then have badly overpriced upgrades to increase their margins, it seems). I honestly thought 1G should be more than enough, even for a Vista system. Well, if all I was doing was web browsing, email, and word processing - and not having *too many* open processes/web pages, at the same time - that probably would have been about enough, I guess. But, I also like to play games on my computer, have 6 or 10 web pages open at a time, sometimes, watch full-screen video, etc.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 1G of RAM just didn't cut for Vista. Vista used almost 700MB of RAM with nothing but a few system-tray apps, and normal system services, running. That is, boot up the laptop, and 700MB or RAM was already in use before opening a single application or game. When I did play games, the system usually had to start paging to disk, which of course kills performance.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I now have 4G of RAM, and Vista basically runs without any problems. But, considering the state of systems when Vista was released (very few people had 4G back then, though it's a bit more common now, but still probably less than 50\% of computers have more than 1G).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; So, Microsoft basically dropped the ball on providing an upgrade which could work well with smaller systems. They apparently thought it wasn't important, because Moore's Law would mean that within a couple years, everyone would have systems with more than enough memory. The problem is, the product has to work well *at release*, on existing systems, in order to get a good reputation, which Vista largely failed to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're * almost * right.1 ) I disagree about UAC .
I was only ever able to be happy with Vista after I turned UAC off .
Effectively , it gives you a chance to say 'no ' to something running , which is n't a bad thing , but for users who know what they are doing , generally they know what 's installed on their systems , and what 's running , already , and do n't need an additional 'grant permission ' window .
For users who do n't really understand much about computers , they have no real notion of whether something * should * be allowed or not , so they 're either going to deny things they should n't ( then wonder why something is n't working right ) , or allow everything , at which point UAC has given them extra prompts for no * actual * security benefit .
      UAC also has the drawback of , potentially , extra user confusion in terms of where files are stored .
What do I mean ?
There are a number of programs which , right or wrong ( mostly wrong ) , store data files in their " Program Files " program directory ( e.g .
c : \ Program Files \ Publisher \ ProgramName \ Data ) .
Now , with UAC turned on , when programs try to do that , the files will actually be saved into the user 's profile directory ( in a sort of 'mirror ' of the program files directory structure ) .
Now , on the surface , that seems like a great idea , BUT - if the user then goes to a manual or tech support page which says that the data files are located in c : \ Program Files \ Publisher \ ProgramName \ Data , they might not backup their data correctly ( in an ideal world , every user 's userprofile directory would also be backed up , but the world is n't always ideal ) .2 ) Part of the problem is n't just marketting - it 's that Microsoft designed a system whose minimum requirements were far beyond what almost all but a small percentage of existing systems had , at the time .
Most people expect that a year or two old system should reasonably be able to upgrade to the latest release .
Heck , brand new systems should have no problem .
      Now , I know this is anecdotal , and so is not scientific proof or anything , but I think it does illustrate the problem pretty well - I bought a brand new Dell laptop right after Vista was released , which came with Vista .
At this time , most computers , except for high-end gaming rigs and workstations used by people doing pretty high-end computing tasks , had about 512M RAM .
      I decided to buy the laptop with 1G of RAM ( I think I could have bought it with 2G , but I would have had to pay like an extra $ 150 or something - Dell likes to advertise systems cheap , then have badly overpriced upgrades to increase their margins , it seems ) .
I honestly thought 1G should be more than enough , even for a Vista system .
Well , if all I was doing was web browsing , email , and word processing - and not having * too many * open processes/web pages , at the same time - that probably would have been about enough , I guess .
But , I also like to play games on my computer , have 6 or 10 web pages open at a time , sometimes , watch full-screen video , etc .
        1G of RAM just did n't cut for Vista .
Vista used almost 700MB of RAM with nothing but a few system-tray apps , and normal system services , running .
That is , boot up the laptop , and 700MB or RAM was already in use before opening a single application or game .
When I did play games , the system usually had to start paging to disk , which of course kills performance .
        I now have 4G of RAM , and Vista basically runs without any problems .
But , considering the state of systems when Vista was released ( very few people had 4G back then , though it 's a bit more common now , but still probably less than 50 \ % of computers have more than 1G ) .
        So , Microsoft basically dropped the ball on providing an upgrade which could work well with smaller systems .
They apparently thought it was n't important , because Moore 's Law would mean that within a couple years , everyone would have systems with more than enough memory .
The problem is , the product has to work well * at release * , on existing systems , in order to get a good reputation , which Vista largely failed to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're *almost* right.1) I disagree about UAC.
I was only ever able to be happy with Vista after I turned UAC off.
Effectively, it gives you a chance to say 'no' to something running, which isn't a bad thing, but for users who know what they are doing, generally they know what's installed on their systems, and what's running, already, and don't need an additional 'grant permission' window.
For users who don't really understand much about computers, they have no real notion of whether something *should* be allowed or not, so they're either going to deny things they shouldn't (then wonder why something isn't working right), or allow everything, at which point UAC has given them extra prompts for no *actual* security benefit.
      UAC also has the drawback of, potentially, extra user confusion in terms of where files are stored.
What do I mean?
There are a number of programs which, right or wrong (mostly wrong), store data files in their "Program Files" program directory (e.g.
c:\Program Files\Publisher\ProgramName\Data).
Now, with UAC turned on, when programs try to do that, the files will actually be saved into the user's profile directory (in a sort of 'mirror' of the program files directory structure).
Now, on the surface, that seems like a great idea, BUT - if the user then goes to a manual or tech support page which says that the data files are located in c:\Program Files\Publisher\ProgramName\Data, they might not backup their data correctly (in an ideal world, every user's userprofile directory would also be backed up, but the world isn't always ideal).2) Part of the problem isn't just marketting - it's that Microsoft designed a system whose minimum requirements were far beyond what almost all but a small percentage of existing systems had, at the time.
Most people expect that a year or two old system should reasonably be able to upgrade to the latest release.
Heck, brand new systems should have no problem.
      Now, I know this is anecdotal, and so is not scientific proof or anything, but I think it does illustrate the problem pretty well - I bought a brand new Dell laptop right after Vista was released, which came with Vista.
At this time, most computers, except for high-end gaming rigs and workstations used by people doing pretty high-end computing tasks, had about 512M RAM.
      I decided to buy the laptop with 1G of RAM (I think I could have bought it with 2G, but I would have had to pay like an extra $150 or something - Dell likes to advertise systems cheap, then have badly overpriced upgrades to increase their margins, it seems).
I honestly thought 1G should be more than enough, even for a Vista system.
Well, if all I was doing was web browsing, email, and word processing - and not having *too many* open processes/web pages, at the same time - that probably would have been about enough, I guess.
But, I also like to play games on my computer, have 6 or 10 web pages open at a time, sometimes, watch full-screen video, etc.
        1G of RAM just didn't cut for Vista.
Vista used almost 700MB of RAM with nothing but a few system-tray apps, and normal system services, running.
That is, boot up the laptop, and 700MB or RAM was already in use before opening a single application or game.
When I did play games, the system usually had to start paging to disk, which of course kills performance.
        I now have 4G of RAM, and Vista basically runs without any problems.
But, considering the state of systems when Vista was released (very few people had 4G back then, though it's a bit more common now, but still probably less than 50\% of computers have more than 1G).
        So, Microsoft basically dropped the ball on providing an upgrade which could work well with smaller systems.
They apparently thought it wasn't important, because Moore's Law would mean that within a couple years, everyone would have systems with more than enough memory.
The problem is, the product has to work well *at release*, on existing systems, in order to get a good reputation, which Vista largely failed to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</id>
	<title>OS Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vista pushed me to Linux, so it's not all bad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista pushed me to Linux , so it 's not all bad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista pushed me to Linux, so it's not all bad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1255366020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Vista pushed me to Linux, so it's not all bad.</p><p>Me too!!!</p><p>Then I realized Linux is programmer-friendly but not user-friendly*, so I decided to try Mac OS X.  Then I realized I'm not rich enough to keep the Mac constantly upgraded, so I eventually found myself back at seven-year-old XP PC (NT 5) right where I began.</p><p>*<br>* Change Ubuntu Linux's resolution to 640x480.<br>Now change it back without using secret,<br>hidden key commands.  It can't be done.<br>That's a non-user-friendly design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Vista pushed me to Linux , so it 's not all bad.Me too ! !
! Then I realized Linux is programmer-friendly but not user-friendly * , so I decided to try Mac OS X. Then I realized I 'm not rich enough to keep the Mac constantly upgraded , so I eventually found myself back at seven-year-old XP PC ( NT 5 ) right where I began .
* * Change Ubuntu Linux 's resolution to 640x480.Now change it back without using secret,hidden key commands .
It ca n't be done.That 's a non-user-friendly design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Vista pushed me to Linux, so it's not all bad.Me too!!
!Then I realized Linux is programmer-friendly but not user-friendly*, so I decided to try Mac OS X.  Then I realized I'm not rich enough to keep the Mac constantly upgraded, so I eventually found myself back at seven-year-old XP PC (NT 5) right where I began.
** Change Ubuntu Linux's resolution to 640x480.Now change it back without using secret,hidden key commands.
It can't be done.That's a non-user-friendly design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719587</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1255365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here, I got fed up with Vista pretty quickly (it came with a new computer - and blue screened at first boot) and switched to Linux - Ubuntu specifically.</p><p>Unfortunately Linux eventually pushed me back to Vista.  It took about a year and a half, and by then SP2 was out all the issues I'd had with Vista before had been delt with.  It it has all been gravy since then.</p><p>I'm telling you, if you aren't fond of the effort Linux takes you might want to give Vista another shot, it has improved a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here , I got fed up with Vista pretty quickly ( it came with a new computer - and blue screened at first boot ) and switched to Linux - Ubuntu specifically.Unfortunately Linux eventually pushed me back to Vista .
It took about a year and a half , and by then SP2 was out all the issues I 'd had with Vista before had been delt with .
It it has all been gravy since then.I 'm telling you , if you are n't fond of the effort Linux takes you might want to give Vista another shot , it has improved a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here, I got fed up with Vista pretty quickly (it came with a new computer - and blue screened at first boot) and switched to Linux - Ubuntu specifically.Unfortunately Linux eventually pushed me back to Vista.
It took about a year and a half, and by then SP2 was out all the issues I'd had with Vista before had been delt with.
It it has all been gravy since then.I'm telling you, if you aren't fond of the effort Linux takes you might want to give Vista another shot, it has improved a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721287</id>
	<title>Re:Well color me savvy!</title>
	<author>sanosuke001</author>
	<datestamp>1255373160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It wasn't anywhere close to a WinME bomb. I was at an internship interview in 2005 or 2006 and we were talking about software we liked and didn't like so I asked the guy what people at MS thought about Windows ME as I had heard people say it was horrible. Well, he said, "we don't talk about Windows ME here." I don't see Vista being the same way. I really like Vista and I haven't had any major problems with it as from random crashes attributed to a bad stick of RAM. <br> <br>

On the other hand, I installed my party pack Win7 Ultimate SE copy on Friday and explorer crashes quite frequently (~2 seconds for the OS to restart it) and it'll go away for a bit if you reboot; but it eventually starts happening again and once it does, it won't stop. Last night, it started crashing while I tried to right click on the recycle bin. Crashed on me 6-7 times before I rebooted. Also, firefox and Windows Mail loads noticeably slower than they did on Vista. Also, I tried to edit a config file last night and UAC, even off, wouldn't let me inside my Program Files dir; no idea why... However, I'm sure they'll work out the issues quickly.<br> <br>

The point is, everything has problems (that being a good or bad this is another debate altogether so I won't comment) and people not liking something just because it's different isn't a reason for it to be considered a flop. ME just sucked; Vista didn't. Vista was just different and I would say it was different in a good way for the most part. Now, if they had removed 32 bit support entirely and added winfs, it would have been a good step forward.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It was n't anywhere close to a WinME bomb .
I was at an internship interview in 2005 or 2006 and we were talking about software we liked and did n't like so I asked the guy what people at MS thought about Windows ME as I had heard people say it was horrible .
Well , he said , " we do n't talk about Windows ME here .
" I do n't see Vista being the same way .
I really like Vista and I have n't had any major problems with it as from random crashes attributed to a bad stick of RAM .
On the other hand , I installed my party pack Win7 Ultimate SE copy on Friday and explorer crashes quite frequently ( ~ 2 seconds for the OS to restart it ) and it 'll go away for a bit if you reboot ; but it eventually starts happening again and once it does , it wo n't stop .
Last night , it started crashing while I tried to right click on the recycle bin .
Crashed on me 6-7 times before I rebooted .
Also , firefox and Windows Mail loads noticeably slower than they did on Vista .
Also , I tried to edit a config file last night and UAC , even off , would n't let me inside my Program Files dir ; no idea why... However , I 'm sure they 'll work out the issues quickly .
The point is , everything has problems ( that being a good or bad this is another debate altogether so I wo n't comment ) and people not liking something just because it 's different is n't a reason for it to be considered a flop .
ME just sucked ; Vista did n't .
Vista was just different and I would say it was different in a good way for the most part .
Now , if they had removed 32 bit support entirely and added winfs , it would have been a good step forward .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It wasn't anywhere close to a WinME bomb.
I was at an internship interview in 2005 or 2006 and we were talking about software we liked and didn't like so I asked the guy what people at MS thought about Windows ME as I had heard people say it was horrible.
Well, he said, "we don't talk about Windows ME here.
" I don't see Vista being the same way.
I really like Vista and I haven't had any major problems with it as from random crashes attributed to a bad stick of RAM.
On the other hand, I installed my party pack Win7 Ultimate SE copy on Friday and explorer crashes quite frequently (~2 seconds for the OS to restart it) and it'll go away for a bit if you reboot; but it eventually starts happening again and once it does, it won't stop.
Last night, it started crashing while I tried to right click on the recycle bin.
Crashed on me 6-7 times before I rebooted.
Also, firefox and Windows Mail loads noticeably slower than they did on Vista.
Also, I tried to edit a config file last night and UAC, even off, wouldn't let me inside my Program Files dir; no idea why... However, I'm sure they'll work out the issues quickly.
The point is, everything has problems (that being a good or bad this is another debate altogether so I won't comment) and people not liking something just because it's different isn't a reason for it to be considered a flop.
ME just sucked; Vista didn't.
Vista was just different and I would say it was different in a good way for the most part.
Now, if they had removed 32 bit support entirely and added winfs, it would have been a good step forward.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719843</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>ACMENEWSLLC</author>
	<datestamp>1255366980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I disagree.  We are on XP now, however we plan to move to Windows 7 EE as we roll out new machines.</p><p>With the EA including App-V in the MDOP, most anything which will not run in Windows 7 should run through App-V.  We are finding that more of our applications work under Windows 7 without modification than did under Vista.  Windows 7's system requirements are less than that of Vista.  Add a 2008 R2 server and you get branch cache.   There are no compelling reasons to stay with XP on a new PC now, however there features in Windows 7 which would be quite beneficial.</p><p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/default.aspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/default.aspx</a> [microsoft.com]<br><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx#branchcache" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx#branchcache</a> [microsoft.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree .
We are on XP now , however we plan to move to Windows 7 EE as we roll out new machines.With the EA including App-V in the MDOP , most anything which will not run in Windows 7 should run through App-V. We are finding that more of our applications work under Windows 7 without modification than did under Vista .
Windows 7 's system requirements are less than that of Vista .
Add a 2008 R2 server and you get branch cache .
There are no compelling reasons to stay with XP on a new PC now , however there features in Windows 7 which would be quite beneficial.http : //www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/default.aspx [ microsoft.com ] http : //www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx # branchcache [ microsoft.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree.
We are on XP now, however we plan to move to Windows 7 EE as we roll out new machines.With the EA including App-V in the MDOP, most anything which will not run in Windows 7 should run through App-V.  We are finding that more of our applications work under Windows 7 without modification than did under Vista.
Windows 7's system requirements are less than that of Vista.
Add a 2008 R2 server and you get branch cache.
There are no compelling reasons to stay with XP on a new PC now, however there features in Windows 7 which would be quite beneficial.http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/mdop/default.aspx [microsoft.com]http://www.microsoft.com/windows/enterprise/products/windows-7/features.aspx#branchcache [microsoft.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719717</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Rob the Bold</author>
	<datestamp>1255366380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vista ain't bad, and really Win7 isn't as different as Vista was to XP.  I tried very hard for 10 years to use Linux.  Not any more; it's too much work.  <em>When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment.</em>  </p></div><p>Neither do I, it takes enough time to be constantly fixing friends' neighbors' and family's copies of XP &amp; Vista.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista ai n't bad , and really Win7 is n't as different as Vista was to XP .
I tried very hard for 10 years to use Linux .
Not any more ; it 's too much work .
When I 'm using my computer , I do n't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment .
Neither do I , it takes enough time to be constantly fixing friends ' neighbors ' and family 's copies of XP &amp; Vista .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista ain't bad, and really Win7 isn't as different as Vista was to XP.
I tried very hard for 10 years to use Linux.
Not any more; it's too much work.
When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment.
Neither do I, it takes enough time to be constantly fixing friends' neighbors' and family's copies of XP &amp; Vista.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723575</id>
	<title>Move the hell on.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255339200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't believe you people are still talking about this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't believe you people are still talking about this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't believe you people are still talking about this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29733303</id>
	<title>Re:Message control, message control, message contr</title>
	<author>Cro Magnon</author>
	<datestamp>1255455360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>tl;dr: Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designed</p></div></blockquote><p>True, but the hardware for which it was designed didn't exist until 2009!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>tl ; dr : Vista does n't suck on the hardware for which it was designedTrue , but the hardware for which it was designed did n't exist until 2009 !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>tl;dr: Vista doesn't suck on the hardware for which it was designedTrue, but the hardware for which it was designed didn't exist until 2009!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29726309</id>
	<title>Re:Why upgrade from 2000?</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1255351560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a laptop, the built-in wireless networking is nice.</p><p>For desktops?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Except it'll cost you twice as much RAM and 30\% more CPU cycles for the equivalent performance.</p><p>Yay, progress!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a laptop , the built-in wireless networking is nice.For desktops ?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing .
Except it 'll cost you twice as much RAM and 30 \ % more CPU cycles for the equivalent performance.Yay , progress !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a laptop, the built-in wireless networking is nice.For desktops?
Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.
Except it'll cost you twice as much RAM and 30\% more CPU cycles for the equivalent performance.Yay, progress!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720903</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1255371900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you hold down Alt while clicking with the mouse, you can drag any window from anywhere, instead of just the title bar. It's a "hidden key command", but it's not like modifying xorg.conf from a command shell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you hold down Alt while clicking with the mouse , you can drag any window from anywhere , instead of just the title bar .
It 's a " hidden key command " , but it 's not like modifying xorg.conf from a command shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you hold down Alt while clicking with the mouse, you can drag any window from anywhere, instead of just the title bar.
It's a "hidden key command", but it's not like modifying xorg.conf from a command shell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719973</id>
	<title>Painful decision</title>
	<author>MpVpRb</author>
	<datestamp>1255367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>AFIK, most of Vista's problems came from a decision Microsoft made.

</p><p>For the entire history of Windows, backward compatibility was king. They even emulated old bugs in newer versions.

</p><p>In Vista, they decided to eliminate the absolute requirement for backward compatibility. Yes...Apple had done this several times already, but for Microsoft, it was a MAJOR philosophy change.

</p><p>Because of the lack of backward compatibility, users who needed to run old programs stayed away.

</p><p>Windows 7 is also not backward compatible, but more time has passed, so presumably, less users care about running their aging software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AFIK , most of Vista 's problems came from a decision Microsoft made .
For the entire history of Windows , backward compatibility was king .
They even emulated old bugs in newer versions .
In Vista , they decided to eliminate the absolute requirement for backward compatibility .
Yes...Apple had done this several times already , but for Microsoft , it was a MAJOR philosophy change .
Because of the lack of backward compatibility , users who needed to run old programs stayed away .
Windows 7 is also not backward compatible , but more time has passed , so presumably , less users care about running their aging software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFIK, most of Vista's problems came from a decision Microsoft made.
For the entire history of Windows, backward compatibility was king.
They even emulated old bugs in newer versions.
In Vista, they decided to eliminate the absolute requirement for backward compatibility.
Yes...Apple had done this several times already, but for Microsoft, it was a MAJOR philosophy change.
Because of the lack of backward compatibility, users who needed to run old programs stayed away.
Windows 7 is also not backward compatible, but more time has passed, so presumably, less users care about running their aging software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719631</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>ub3r n3u7r4l1st</author>
	<datestamp>1255366020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are bound to miss the benefit and superiority that Windows 7 has to offer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are bound to miss the benefit and superiority that Windows 7 has to offer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are bound to miss the benefit and superiority that Windows 7 has to offer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</id>
	<title>Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But my feeling is: Windows 7 will suffer the same fate that Vista did. It will be still XP in all major Corporates; where they will erase the pre-installed Windows7 and install XP using the Corporate licenses. Software developers will continue to support XP atleast for the next 4 years.</p><p>By which time, the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market. It will not be a stretch to predict that Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years in all Corporates where people exect their devices to boot instantly and work reliably consuming less resources like mobile phones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But my feeling is : Windows 7 will suffer the same fate that Vista did .
It will be still XP in all major Corporates ; where they will erase the pre-installed Windows7 and install XP using the Corporate licenses .
Software developers will continue to support XP atleast for the next 4 years.By which time , the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market .
It will not be a stretch to predict that Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years in all Corporates where people exect their devices to boot instantly and work reliably consuming less resources like mobile phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But my feeling is: Windows 7 will suffer the same fate that Vista did.
It will be still XP in all major Corporates; where they will erase the pre-installed Windows7 and install XP using the Corporate licenses.
Software developers will continue to support XP atleast for the next 4 years.By which time, the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market.
It will not be a stretch to predict that Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years in all Corporates where people exect their devices to boot instantly and work reliably consuming less resources like mobile phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720123</id>
	<title>Re:Why upgrade from 2000?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255368420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well,if it runs everything you use and your not going to stick it on the internet then keep it.  You could have issues if it's old enough to stop receiving patches (I thought 2000 had hit that mark already, or will very soon, so going on the internet regularly with a machine way behind on security patches could be scary), and after awhile you'll find programs that won't run on it.  That was the only reason I switched from DOS to windows 98 (which subsequently lead to my love of linux), once everything needed windows to run I had to move up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well,if it runs everything you use and your not going to stick it on the internet then keep it .
You could have issues if it 's old enough to stop receiving patches ( I thought 2000 had hit that mark already , or will very soon , so going on the internet regularly with a machine way behind on security patches could be scary ) , and after awhile you 'll find programs that wo n't run on it .
That was the only reason I switched from DOS to windows 98 ( which subsequently lead to my love of linux ) , once everything needed windows to run I had to move up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well,if it runs everything you use and your not going to stick it on the internet then keep it.
You could have issues if it's old enough to stop receiving patches (I thought 2000 had hit that mark already, or will very soon, so going on the internet regularly with a machine way behind on security patches could be scary), and after awhile you'll find programs that won't run on it.
That was the only reason I switched from DOS to windows 98 (which subsequently lead to my love of linux), once everything needed windows to run I had to move up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621</id>
	<title>Why upgrade from 2000?</title>
	<author>glrotate</author>
	<datestamp>1255366020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really haven't encountered a compelling feature exclusive to XP, Vista or 7 to upgrade beyond 2000.</p><p>2000 has a clean efficient interface and is unencumbered by all of the bloat and runs 32 bit apps.</p><p>Except for Cleartype, what real improvements do any of the above offer?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really have n't encountered a compelling feature exclusive to XP , Vista or 7 to upgrade beyond 2000.2000 has a clean efficient interface and is unencumbered by all of the bloat and runs 32 bit apps.Except for Cleartype , what real improvements do any of the above offer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really haven't encountered a compelling feature exclusive to XP, Vista or 7 to upgrade beyond 2000.2000 has a clean efficient interface and is unencumbered by all of the bloat and runs 32 bit apps.Except for Cleartype, what real improvements do any of the above offer?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721491</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>awitod</author>
	<datestamp>1255373760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what you are saying is '2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop'?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what you are saying is '2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop ' ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what you are saying is '2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop'?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722245</id>
	<title>Re:Why upgrade from 2000?</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1255376580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agree 100\%. You can re-install w2k as many times as you need.</p><p>W2K is faster on the same hardware, it runs all my hw and sw, has a much cleaner interface, and is stable, and can be made secure.</p><p>Even if you're one of those msft fanboys - who furiously masturbates over things like fading menus - you must admit, msft has not made much progress in the last decade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree 100 \ % .
You can re-install w2k as many times as you need.W2K is faster on the same hardware , it runs all my hw and sw , has a much cleaner interface , and is stable , and can be made secure.Even if you 're one of those msft fanboys - who furiously masturbates over things like fading menus - you must admit , msft has not made much progress in the last decade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree 100\%.
You can re-install w2k as many times as you need.W2K is faster on the same hardware, it runs all my hw and sw, has a much cleaner interface, and is stable, and can be made secure.Even if you're one of those msft fanboys - who furiously masturbates over things like fading menus - you must admit, msft has not made much progress in the last decade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723097</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Memroid</author>
	<datestamp>1255380180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good thing there's nothing like UAC on linux.... oh wait: <a href="http://twitpic.com/laaj6" title="twitpic.com" rel="nofollow">http://twitpic.com/laaj6</a> [twitpic.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good thing there 's nothing like UAC on linux.... oh wait : http : //twitpic.com/laaj6 [ twitpic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good thing there's nothing like UAC on linux.... oh wait: http://twitpic.com/laaj6 [twitpic.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720291</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255369200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for an engineering firm who has ~200 high end desktop workstations.</p><p>Until you can get a Netbook with Dual Nalhem Xeons, SAS drives and 24GB of RAM, i dont see any replacing the CAD workstations in our office.</p><p>Out of our ~200 systems, we have allread migrated 100 of them to Windows 7 (from XP 64bit/Vista 64bit) - with drastic speed improvements.</p><p>Our directors spun heaps of the doom and gloom about Vista - but they seem open to 7... Maybe its what they've read, or been told - but Windows 7 does have a different reputation to Vista out in the "non tech" world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for an engineering firm who has ~ 200 high end desktop workstations.Until you can get a Netbook with Dual Nalhem Xeons , SAS drives and 24GB of RAM , i dont see any replacing the CAD workstations in our office.Out of our ~ 200 systems , we have allread migrated 100 of them to Windows 7 ( from XP 64bit/Vista 64bit ) - with drastic speed improvements.Our directors spun heaps of the doom and gloom about Vista - but they seem open to 7... Maybe its what they 've read , or been told - but Windows 7 does have a different reputation to Vista out in the " non tech " world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for an engineering firm who has ~200 high end desktop workstations.Until you can get a Netbook with Dual Nalhem Xeons, SAS drives and 24GB of RAM, i dont see any replacing the CAD workstations in our office.Out of our ~200 systems, we have allread migrated 100 of them to Windows 7 (from XP 64bit/Vista 64bit) - with drastic speed improvements.Our directors spun heaps of the doom and gloom about Vista - but they seem open to 7... Maybe its what they've read, or been told - but Windows 7 does have a different reputation to Vista out in the "non tech" world.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720877</id>
	<title>Re:Windows $NEXT\_VERSION will pwn all</title>
	<author>orkysoft</author>
	<datestamp>1255371780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I used to believe it too, in 1998. Not so much anymore soon after. Most people still fall for it, so MS just keeps pumping out the empty promises.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I used to believe it too , in 1998 .
Not so much anymore soon after .
Most people still fall for it , so MS just keeps pumping out the empty promises .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used to believe it too, in 1998.
Not so much anymore soon after.
Most people still fall for it, so MS just keeps pumping out the empty promises.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721249</id>
	<title>Vista increased my productivity at work</title>
	<author>roachdabug</author>
	<datestamp>1255373040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About a year ago, I was asked to be the guinea pig and test out all our engineering applications in Vista. I immediately cringed at the thought of running our 3D Solid Modeling software in the new OS.</p><p>My fears were quickly put to rest though. It turns out Solidworks ran flawlessly, and turned out to be far more stable than it was in XP64. Additionally, I found that it would start in a fraction of the time every morning, and I was no longer subjected to 5 minutes of hard disk grinding if I left the application open when I went to lunch. AutoCAD and our 8 year old ERP software had no issues, either. I make frequent use of the improved search features to find a particular drawing or part file lost in a sea of many thousands of engineering files and directories across a network in a couple of seconds.</p><p>Today, our entire department is on Vista. Given the opportunity, would we go back to XP? Not a chance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About a year ago , I was asked to be the guinea pig and test out all our engineering applications in Vista .
I immediately cringed at the thought of running our 3D Solid Modeling software in the new OS.My fears were quickly put to rest though .
It turns out Solidworks ran flawlessly , and turned out to be far more stable than it was in XP64 .
Additionally , I found that it would start in a fraction of the time every morning , and I was no longer subjected to 5 minutes of hard disk grinding if I left the application open when I went to lunch .
AutoCAD and our 8 year old ERP software had no issues , either .
I make frequent use of the improved search features to find a particular drawing or part file lost in a sea of many thousands of engineering files and directories across a network in a couple of seconds.Today , our entire department is on Vista .
Given the opportunity , would we go back to XP ?
Not a chance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About a year ago, I was asked to be the guinea pig and test out all our engineering applications in Vista.
I immediately cringed at the thought of running our 3D Solid Modeling software in the new OS.My fears were quickly put to rest though.
It turns out Solidworks ran flawlessly, and turned out to be far more stable than it was in XP64.
Additionally, I found that it would start in a fraction of the time every morning, and I was no longer subjected to 5 minutes of hard disk grinding if I left the application open when I went to lunch.
AutoCAD and our 8 year old ERP software had no issues, either.
I make frequent use of the improved search features to find a particular drawing or part file lost in a sea of many thousands of engineering files and directories across a network in a couple of seconds.Today, our entire department is on Vista.
Given the opportunity, would we go back to XP?
Not a chance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725333</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>AceofSpades19</author>
	<datestamp>1255346580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When did you last use linux? 5 years ago? I hardly ever fiddle around with my install of Slackware which is supposed to be a lot harder to use then Ubuntu. What do you find thats a lot of work?</htmltext>
<tokenext>When did you last use linux ?
5 years ago ?
I hardly ever fiddle around with my install of Slackware which is supposed to be a lot harder to use then Ubuntu .
What do you find thats a lot of work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When did you last use linux?
5 years ago?
I hardly ever fiddle around with my install of Slackware which is supposed to be a lot harder to use then Ubuntu.
What do you find thats a lot of work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29724535</id>
	<title>Re:Original slashdot readers review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255342860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if you've never used it how can you say its terrible, I think its pretty good, and i don't see people's problems with it on my 2002 dell inspiron</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if you 've never used it how can you say its terrible , I think its pretty good , and i do n't see people 's problems with it on my 2002 dell inspiron</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if you've never used it how can you say its terrible, I think its pretty good, and i don't see people's problems with it on my 2002 dell inspiron</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719715</id>
	<title>Vista was fine, I blame Apple</title>
	<author>WebmasterNeal</author>
	<datestamp>1255366380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have Vista, and have been using it for a year or two now. I had issues early on, but discovered that it wasn't Vista but a bad RAM stick that was giving me grief. I really have no qualms about the operating system. Personally I think Apple is the one to blame about the public perception of Vista. Microsoft's marketing has focused on their own product and tried to keep the mud slinging to a minimum while Apple decide to directly speak to Microsoft and bash them during their marketing campaign. I guess we can see what the public responds to better. No wonder politicians campaign the way they do.
<br> <br>
I hate to knock on wood but I have to wonder if Apple will stick the course with Windows 7 as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have Vista , and have been using it for a year or two now .
I had issues early on , but discovered that it was n't Vista but a bad RAM stick that was giving me grief .
I really have no qualms about the operating system .
Personally I think Apple is the one to blame about the public perception of Vista .
Microsoft 's marketing has focused on their own product and tried to keep the mud slinging to a minimum while Apple decide to directly speak to Microsoft and bash them during their marketing campaign .
I guess we can see what the public responds to better .
No wonder politicians campaign the way they do .
I hate to knock on wood but I have to wonder if Apple will stick the course with Windows 7 as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have Vista, and have been using it for a year or two now.
I had issues early on, but discovered that it wasn't Vista but a bad RAM stick that was giving me grief.
I really have no qualms about the operating system.
Personally I think Apple is the one to blame about the public perception of Vista.
Microsoft's marketing has focused on their own product and tried to keep the mud slinging to a minimum while Apple decide to directly speak to Microsoft and bash them during their marketing campaign.
I guess we can see what the public responds to better.
No wonder politicians campaign the way they do.
I hate to knock on wood but I have to wonder if Apple will stick the course with Windows 7 as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29755715</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>bjb</author>
	<datestamp>1255614240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is one difference that will move corporations away from XP, however: 64-bit.
<p>
Yeah, you could make the argument that corporate customers don't run that much software and that the extended memory space afforded by 64-bit only matters to people dealing with audio/video/photo or developers. However, for large corporations with IT departments developing internal software (say large banks and trading software) they tend to develop larger and larger footprint applications. With the modern popular frameworks, you're seeing much larger application sizes and thus that 2GB of RAM starts becoming a bit of a liability.
</p><p>
At least, I know I see this every day at my job. I can't wait to get SOMETHING other than 32-bit XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is one difference that will move corporations away from XP , however : 64-bit .
Yeah , you could make the argument that corporate customers do n't run that much software and that the extended memory space afforded by 64-bit only matters to people dealing with audio/video/photo or developers .
However , for large corporations with IT departments developing internal software ( say large banks and trading software ) they tend to develop larger and larger footprint applications .
With the modern popular frameworks , you 're seeing much larger application sizes and thus that 2GB of RAM starts becoming a bit of a liability .
At least , I know I see this every day at my job .
I ca n't wait to get SOMETHING other than 32-bit XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is one difference that will move corporations away from XP, however: 64-bit.
Yeah, you could make the argument that corporate customers don't run that much software and that the extended memory space afforded by 64-bit only matters to people dealing with audio/video/photo or developers.
However, for large corporations with IT departments developing internal software (say large banks and trading software) they tend to develop larger and larger footprint applications.
With the modern popular frameworks, you're seeing much larger application sizes and thus that 2GB of RAM starts becoming a bit of a liability.
At least, I know I see this every day at my job.
I can't wait to get SOMETHING other than 32-bit XP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719373</id>
	<title>Main Problem With Vista Was It Instantly Annoyed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255365060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The legacy of Vista is the importance of first impressions.</p><p>for the majority of users, their first Vista experience was impeded by a slew of "you just clicked an icon!  this is a security risk!  are you sure??" messages, and "in order to run this program, you must have administrator privileges.  do you want to run this as administrator now?" popup messages.  it was very annoying, and blunted what could have been a fine experience with a shiny new OS.</p><p>This was by no means the most serious problem with Vista, but it had tremendous impact on its reception.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The legacy of Vista is the importance of first impressions.for the majority of users , their first Vista experience was impeded by a slew of " you just clicked an icon !
this is a security risk !
are you sure ? ?
" messages , and " in order to run this program , you must have administrator privileges .
do you want to run this as administrator now ?
" popup messages .
it was very annoying , and blunted what could have been a fine experience with a shiny new OS.This was by no means the most serious problem with Vista , but it had tremendous impact on its reception .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The legacy of Vista is the importance of first impressions.for the majority of users, their first Vista experience was impeded by a slew of "you just clicked an icon!
this is a security risk!
are you sure??
" messages, and "in order to run this program, you must have administrator privileges.
do you want to run this as administrator now?
" popup messages.
it was very annoying, and blunted what could have been a fine experience with a shiny new OS.This was by no means the most serious problem with Vista, but it had tremendous impact on its reception.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725549</id>
	<title>No mention of logon scripts?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255347480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There must not be any Windows admins here today.  I can't believe that no one mentioned the difficulties with Vista on domains with logon scripts.  I expect the same problem to exist in Windows 7.  Until we can get this reliably fixed (because MS can't tell you how to reliably fix it), I don't see Windows 7 taking over the IT department either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There must not be any Windows admins here today .
I ca n't believe that no one mentioned the difficulties with Vista on domains with logon scripts .
I expect the same problem to exist in Windows 7 .
Until we can get this reliably fixed ( because MS ca n't tell you how to reliably fix it ) , I do n't see Windows 7 taking over the IT department either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There must not be any Windows admins here today.
I can't believe that no one mentioned the difficulties with Vista on domains with logon scripts.
I expect the same problem to exist in Windows 7.
Until we can get this reliably fixed (because MS can't tell you how to reliably fix it), I don't see Windows 7 taking over the IT department either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721383</id>
	<title>"Major Problems"?</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1255373400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been using it for years now, and have yet to bump into any "major problems".

</p><p>I've had to reinstall my Wife's XP about 5 times since then to wipe malware, and only had to reinstall Vista once since then. Thank you, UAC!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been using it for years now , and have yet to bump into any " major problems " .
I 've had to reinstall my Wife 's XP about 5 times since then to wipe malware , and only had to reinstall Vista once since then .
Thank you , UAC !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been using it for years now, and have yet to bump into any "major problems".
I've had to reinstall my Wife's XP about 5 times since then to wipe malware, and only had to reinstall Vista once since then.
Thank you, UAC!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719705</id>
	<title>Re:Main Problem With Vista Was It Instantly Annoye</title>
	<author>lymond01</author>
	<datestamp>1255366320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The security pop-ups were certainly (sorry...ARE certainly annoying) when running in non-admin mode.  But I'd almost say they were a necessary evil.  Most users, even after you explain it to them a hundred times or have to reformat their computer because of a virus, still don't get the idea that running with full admin privileges is a bad idea.  These annoying pop-ups may or may not have helped them figure that out, but it went a long way to keeping computers clean of viruses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The security pop-ups were certainly ( sorry...ARE certainly annoying ) when running in non-admin mode .
But I 'd almost say they were a necessary evil .
Most users , even after you explain it to them a hundred times or have to reformat their computer because of a virus , still do n't get the idea that running with full admin privileges is a bad idea .
These annoying pop-ups may or may not have helped them figure that out , but it went a long way to keeping computers clean of viruses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The security pop-ups were certainly (sorry...ARE certainly annoying) when running in non-admin mode.
But I'd almost say they were a necessary evil.
Most users, even after you explain it to them a hundred times or have to reformat their computer because of a virus, still don't get the idea that running with full admin privileges is a bad idea.
These annoying pop-ups may or may not have helped them figure that out, but it went a long way to keeping computers clean of viruses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719373</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720901</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1255371900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't have to spend time fiddling with your desktop if you don't want to, the nice thing about Linux is that you can, and it's relatively easy.  Not the same for windows.  I've wasted many hours looking for a way to provide virtual desktops under Windows that doesn't crash my software, or shuffle my task bar.  In Linux, I don't have to think about it.  So I use Linux.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't have to spend time fiddling with your desktop if you do n't want to , the nice thing about Linux is that you can , and it 's relatively easy .
Not the same for windows .
I 've wasted many hours looking for a way to provide virtual desktops under Windows that does n't crash my software , or shuffle my task bar .
In Linux , I do n't have to think about it .
So I use Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't have to spend time fiddling with your desktop if you don't want to, the nice thing about Linux is that you can, and it's relatively easy.
Not the same for windows.
I've wasted many hours looking for a way to provide virtual desktops under Windows that doesn't crash my software, or shuffle my task bar.
In Linux, I don't have to think about it.
So I use Linux.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719289</id>
	<title>Follow The Money</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I looked back at the evaluations in nine major publications and found that they expressed some caution--but on the whole, they were far from scathing. Some were downright enthusiastic.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yeah I occasionally read magazines like PC Magazine (the dead-tree version).  Their review was far from scathing as well.  Then I notice all of the Microsoft ads and the "Designed for Windows X" labels prominently displayed on any advertisements for desktops and laptops and I think "hmm.... coincidence?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked back at the evaluations in nine major publications and found that they expressed some caution--but on the whole , they were far from scathing .
Some were downright enthusiastic .
Yeah I occasionally read magazines like PC Magazine ( the dead-tree version ) .
Their review was far from scathing as well .
Then I notice all of the Microsoft ads and the " Designed for Windows X " labels prominently displayed on any advertisements for desktops and laptops and I think " hmm... .
coincidence ? "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked back at the evaluations in nine major publications and found that they expressed some caution--but on the whole, they were far from scathing.
Some were downright enthusiastic.
Yeah I occasionally read magazines like PC Magazine (the dead-tree version).
Their review was far from scathing as well.
Then I notice all of the Microsoft ads and the "Designed for Windows X" labels prominently displayed on any advertisements for desktops and laptops and I think "hmm....
coincidence?"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720649</id>
	<title>The real story here isn't Vista...</title>
	<author>icebike</author>
	<datestamp>1255370880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Say what you will about Vista, that ship has sailed.</p><p>The real story here is how badly the early reviews missed the mark.  The Ed Botts of the world bought it hook, line, and sinker, as many suspect they are paid to do.</p><p>The press failed US, their READERS, in their gold-rush to the Microsoft advertising bonanza.  How are we to trust them going forward?</p><p>Yes its popular to bash anything Microsoft while giving Apple a pass for farm more egregious failings and a far more combative attitude. But EVEN in that environment, where bashing is expected, the overwhelming majority of articles were positive.  Those two or three posting negative stories are no longer with the organizations where their review appeared.  Coincidence?</p><p>We would have been better off listening to Joe Random Blogger, who were out there with not a great deal of good to say about Vista.  We would have been better off shunning any outlet that took any Advertising money from Microsoft, or were owned by a company that did.  We would have been better off evaluating sources for thin reviews, outlandish claims and clear bias.  Joe Average Reader is a pretty good judge of content character over time.</p><p>The Release Candidates were getting seriously bad reviews on many blogs, and even some of these very same publications.  But somehow by the time it came to review the RTM release all of mainstream press guys stood at attention and saluted.  The bloggers' voices were drowned out by the clicking if heels.</p><p>This same thing is happening with regard to other products, other major software release today. (The latest versions of Office, KDE4, Kindle, some Blackberries, etc, come to mind).  Lots of carping, even some quite nasty, but uniformly glowing reviews in the major publications.</p><p>Mainstream press wants to play gatekeeper of information.  They belittle the blogosphere, decry the lack of filters, and insist on professional credentials.  Yet they deliver major misses on some topics where there was clear indication of trouble ahead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Say what you will about Vista , that ship has sailed.The real story here is how badly the early reviews missed the mark .
The Ed Botts of the world bought it hook , line , and sinker , as many suspect they are paid to do.The press failed US , their READERS , in their gold-rush to the Microsoft advertising bonanza .
How are we to trust them going forward ? Yes its popular to bash anything Microsoft while giving Apple a pass for farm more egregious failings and a far more combative attitude .
But EVEN in that environment , where bashing is expected , the overwhelming majority of articles were positive .
Those two or three posting negative stories are no longer with the organizations where their review appeared .
Coincidence ? We would have been better off listening to Joe Random Blogger , who were out there with not a great deal of good to say about Vista .
We would have been better off shunning any outlet that took any Advertising money from Microsoft , or were owned by a company that did .
We would have been better off evaluating sources for thin reviews , outlandish claims and clear bias .
Joe Average Reader is a pretty good judge of content character over time.The Release Candidates were getting seriously bad reviews on many blogs , and even some of these very same publications .
But somehow by the time it came to review the RTM release all of mainstream press guys stood at attention and saluted .
The bloggers ' voices were drowned out by the clicking if heels.This same thing is happening with regard to other products , other major software release today .
( The latest versions of Office , KDE4 , Kindle , some Blackberries , etc , come to mind ) .
Lots of carping , even some quite nasty , but uniformly glowing reviews in the major publications.Mainstream press wants to play gatekeeper of information .
They belittle the blogosphere , decry the lack of filters , and insist on professional credentials .
Yet they deliver major misses on some topics where there was clear indication of trouble ahead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Say what you will about Vista, that ship has sailed.The real story here is how badly the early reviews missed the mark.
The Ed Botts of the world bought it hook, line, and sinker, as many suspect they are paid to do.The press failed US, their READERS, in their gold-rush to the Microsoft advertising bonanza.
How are we to trust them going forward?Yes its popular to bash anything Microsoft while giving Apple a pass for farm more egregious failings and a far more combative attitude.
But EVEN in that environment, where bashing is expected, the overwhelming majority of articles were positive.
Those two or three posting negative stories are no longer with the organizations where their review appeared.
Coincidence?We would have been better off listening to Joe Random Blogger, who were out there with not a great deal of good to say about Vista.
We would have been better off shunning any outlet that took any Advertising money from Microsoft, or were owned by a company that did.
We would have been better off evaluating sources for thin reviews, outlandish claims and clear bias.
Joe Average Reader is a pretty good judge of content character over time.The Release Candidates were getting seriously bad reviews on many blogs, and even some of these very same publications.
But somehow by the time it came to review the RTM release all of mainstream press guys stood at attention and saluted.
The bloggers' voices were drowned out by the clicking if heels.This same thing is happening with regard to other products, other major software release today.
(The latest versions of Office, KDE4, Kindle, some Blackberries, etc, come to mind).
Lots of carping, even some quite nasty, but uniformly glowing reviews in the major publications.Mainstream press wants to play gatekeeper of information.
They belittle the blogosphere, decry the lack of filters, and insist on professional credentials.
Yet they deliver major misses on some topics where there was clear indication of trouble ahead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722163</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255376160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Linux will establish itself within the next 4 years</p></div><p>So that will make 2013 or 2014 the year of linux on the desktop?<br> Too bad the world is gonna end Dec 21 2012....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux will establish itself within the next 4 yearsSo that will make 2013 or 2014 the year of linux on the desktop ?
Too bad the world is gon na end Dec 21 2012... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux will establish itself within the next 4 yearsSo that will make 2013 or 2014 the year of linux on the desktop?
Too bad the world is gonna end Dec 21 2012....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29730521</id>
	<title>Re:Message control, message control, message contr</title>
	<author>Idaho</author>
	<datestamp>1255440480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But marketdroid lies notwithstanding, the underlying technology behind Vista wasn't bad: far from it, actually.</p></div></blockquote><p>If you don't think Vista has severe technology-related problems, you must either<br>(1) have never used it, or<br>(2) have never used anything else so you just don't know any better.</p><p>To start with, it absolutely does not run normally with anything less than (at the very least) 2 GB of RAM, whereas XP, Mac OS X *and* Linux work fine with 1 GB. I for one would certainly call this a technology-related problem. (And yes, I have watched Vista crawl on a semi-recent cheap HP laptop with only 1 GB of RAM. It works just great with XP).</p><p>Also, I'm sure all those oft-reported reasons regarding high CPU usage during network transfers, *extremely* slow network file copying (sure...somewhat addressed in later SP's) have absolutely nothing to do with technology, but are just due to "bad marketing" then?</p><p>I'm not even going to go into the further user interface experience.</p><p>But, I'm sure everything is OK if you just keep drinking the Kool-aid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But marketdroid lies notwithstanding , the underlying technology behind Vista was n't bad : far from it , actually.If you do n't think Vista has severe technology-related problems , you must either ( 1 ) have never used it , or ( 2 ) have never used anything else so you just do n't know any better.To start with , it absolutely does not run normally with anything less than ( at the very least ) 2 GB of RAM , whereas XP , Mac OS X * and * Linux work fine with 1 GB .
I for one would certainly call this a technology-related problem .
( And yes , I have watched Vista crawl on a semi-recent cheap HP laptop with only 1 GB of RAM .
It works just great with XP ) .Also , I 'm sure all those oft-reported reasons regarding high CPU usage during network transfers , * extremely * slow network file copying ( sure...somewhat addressed in later SP 's ) have absolutely nothing to do with technology , but are just due to " bad marketing " then ? I 'm not even going to go into the further user interface experience.But , I 'm sure everything is OK if you just keep drinking the Kool-aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But marketdroid lies notwithstanding, the underlying technology behind Vista wasn't bad: far from it, actually.If you don't think Vista has severe technology-related problems, you must either(1) have never used it, or(2) have never used anything else so you just don't know any better.To start with, it absolutely does not run normally with anything less than (at the very least) 2 GB of RAM, whereas XP, Mac OS X *and* Linux work fine with 1 GB.
I for one would certainly call this a technology-related problem.
(And yes, I have watched Vista crawl on a semi-recent cheap HP laptop with only 1 GB of RAM.
It works just great with XP).Also, I'm sure all those oft-reported reasons regarding high CPU usage during network transfers, *extremely* slow network file copying (sure...somewhat addressed in later SP's) have absolutely nothing to do with technology, but are just due to "bad marketing" then?I'm not even going to go into the further user interface experience.But, I'm sure everything is OK if you just keep drinking the Kool-aid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721117</id>
	<title>Quotes on Vista? Here's hundreds.</title>
	<author>superalias</author>
	<datestamp>1255372620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hundreds. And they're not pretty.
<a href="http://www.microsplot.com/vista" title="microsplot.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.microsplot.com/vista</a> [microsplot.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hundreds .
And they 're not pretty .
http : //www.microsplot.com/vista [ microsplot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hundreds.
And they're not pretty.
http://www.microsplot.com/vista [microsplot.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29728461</id>
	<title>Re:Original slashdot readers review</title>
	<author>GermanicusSeizeHer</author>
	<datestamp>1255367820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's sucks, it's terrible, I've never used it...</p></div><p>That would be me.  While our policy on Vista was still wait-and-see, a PHB-wannabe in a neglected office bought himself a laptop with Vista, then asked me to install our C/S software.  The firefox client applet crashed the Vista control panel &amp; explorer!  This was 3rd party software that works faultlessly on XP; failure to run on the new OS would have been forgiveable, but not a system crash.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sucks , it 's terrible , I 've never used it...That would be me .
While our policy on Vista was still wait-and-see , a PHB-wannabe in a neglected office bought himself a laptop with Vista , then asked me to install our C/S software .
The firefox client applet crashed the Vista control panel &amp; explorer !
This was 3rd party software that works faultlessly on XP ; failure to run on the new OS would have been forgiveable , but not a system crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sucks, it's terrible, I've never used it...That would be me.
While our policy on Vista was still wait-and-see, a PHB-wannabe in a neglected office bought himself a laptop with Vista, then asked me to install our C/S software.
The firefox client applet crashed the Vista control panel &amp; explorer!
This was 3rd party software that works faultlessly on XP; failure to run on the new OS would have been forgiveable, but not a system crash.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29734575</id>
	<title>Win7 (probably) won't have Vista's problems</title>
	<author>mattb47</author>
	<datestamp>1255460700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vista's big problems vs. Win7</p><p>1) Drivers.  Driver model changed from XP to Vista.  Lots of devices at Vista's beginning either didn't have drivers or had buggy/crappy drivers.  Win7 uses Vista's driver model, so most Vista drivers will work on it.  And since Vista has been "gold" for almost 3 years, drivers exist for most devices made in the last 4-5 years.  (Past that, well, still good luck.  If a device was really popular or the device/chipset manufacturer is good, maybe you have drivers.)</p><p>Note that this may changes a LOT if you go from 32-bit to 64-bit.  64-bit drivers may or may not work well on your system.  My personal experience was with a Toshiba Satellite laptop.  Utterly unstable BSOD city with 64-bit Win7, even with official drivers.  Installed 32-bit instead and the system is rock solid stable.  I'd rather be running 64-bit, but not if the system becomes unbootable within a day.</p><p>2) File copying.  For me, pre-SP1 Vista was completely broken just for the file transfer issues.  Transferring files to/from my corporate network took 20x (more?) that of XP.  Completely unacceptable and a total deal breaker.  (And I don't know how or why this critical bug ever escaped beta.  Don't people at Microsoft actually transfer files on their networks???)</p><p>3) Performance.  Vista was significantly slower than XP, and was pushed onto machines that were completely overwhelmed by this.  Even more "hefty" systems struggled.  The internal memos on this at Microsoft were classic.  People bought $2000 laptops that were much slower than their 2 or 3 year old previous laptops.  Vista performance stank.  And RAM requirements were underplayed.  XP runs fine with 512mb - 1gb of RAM (depending on your usage).  Vista needs double that, but some of the original Vista systems had only 512mb.</p><p>Vista after SP1 (and some more updates) improved quite a bit on it's performance.  Win7 is faster than Vista as well.  OK, it's not as fast as XP.  But the gulf between XP and Win7 is nowhere as vast as that between Win XP and Vista back in 2006-2007.</p><p>We're also 3 years along with Moore's law.  Dual-cores are common.  Some even have triple and quad cores.  Graphics cards are much better as well.  So average system power is much higher and more capable of shouldering additional computing burdens.</p><p>So Win7 should run well on most 2007+ systems (except for lower-end netbooks), especially if you up the ram to 2gb.  Ram is dirt cheap these days, and almost all systems come with at least 1gb of ram.  Even many consumer systems sell with 2gb or 3gb of ram.</p><p>I still wouldn't try to use it on anything other than really high-end "workstation" systems from pre-2006 (e.g., got a Dell Precision with dual socket Xeons?).</p><p>And if you bought a low-end early non-dual core Vista laptop -- sorry, just downgrade the system to XP.  You got screwed.</p><p>4) UAC.  Yes -- UAC sucks, especially if you need to do any real adminstration on a Vista system.  I setup group policy on my corporate systems so that any administrator accounts had silent elevation, so UAC still ran but silently in the background.  For home systems, sometimes I just turned the annoying bugger off.</p><p>It's easier to tone it down in Win7.  At these levels, it doesn't pop up constantly, and probably is no more annoying than security prompts in OS X or having to sudo everywhere in Linux.</p><p>5) The UI.<br>And yes, I've been using Win7 on my laptop for a month.  I'm still not completely happy with some of the UI changes vs. XP.  (Vista of course had the same problem.  Microsoft broke design conventions that existed since Windows 3.0 or so.  Vista made items harder to reach -- requiring 5 clicks instead of 2 or 3.  And so forth.)  But the UI in Win7 is more polished and less annoying than Vista.  I still miss the classic start menu, but I'm missing it less and less.  And I couldn't live without the Quick Start bar.  It can be somewhat easily faked in Win7.  And no, pinning icons to the task bar is not the same -- they take up lots, lots more screen real est</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista 's big problems vs. Win71 ) Drivers .
Driver model changed from XP to Vista .
Lots of devices at Vista 's beginning either did n't have drivers or had buggy/crappy drivers .
Win7 uses Vista 's driver model , so most Vista drivers will work on it .
And since Vista has been " gold " for almost 3 years , drivers exist for most devices made in the last 4-5 years .
( Past that , well , still good luck .
If a device was really popular or the device/chipset manufacturer is good , maybe you have drivers .
) Note that this may changes a LOT if you go from 32-bit to 64-bit .
64-bit drivers may or may not work well on your system .
My personal experience was with a Toshiba Satellite laptop .
Utterly unstable BSOD city with 64-bit Win7 , even with official drivers .
Installed 32-bit instead and the system is rock solid stable .
I 'd rather be running 64-bit , but not if the system becomes unbootable within a day.2 ) File copying .
For me , pre-SP1 Vista was completely broken just for the file transfer issues .
Transferring files to/from my corporate network took 20x ( more ?
) that of XP .
Completely unacceptable and a total deal breaker .
( And I do n't know how or why this critical bug ever escaped beta .
Do n't people at Microsoft actually transfer files on their networks ? ? ?
) 3 ) Performance .
Vista was significantly slower than XP , and was pushed onto machines that were completely overwhelmed by this .
Even more " hefty " systems struggled .
The internal memos on this at Microsoft were classic .
People bought $ 2000 laptops that were much slower than their 2 or 3 year old previous laptops .
Vista performance stank .
And RAM requirements were underplayed .
XP runs fine with 512mb - 1gb of RAM ( depending on your usage ) .
Vista needs double that , but some of the original Vista systems had only 512mb.Vista after SP1 ( and some more updates ) improved quite a bit on it 's performance .
Win7 is faster than Vista as well .
OK , it 's not as fast as XP .
But the gulf between XP and Win7 is nowhere as vast as that between Win XP and Vista back in 2006-2007.We 're also 3 years along with Moore 's law .
Dual-cores are common .
Some even have triple and quad cores .
Graphics cards are much better as well .
So average system power is much higher and more capable of shouldering additional computing burdens.So Win7 should run well on most 2007 + systems ( except for lower-end netbooks ) , especially if you up the ram to 2gb .
Ram is dirt cheap these days , and almost all systems come with at least 1gb of ram .
Even many consumer systems sell with 2gb or 3gb of ram.I still would n't try to use it on anything other than really high-end " workstation " systems from pre-2006 ( e.g. , got a Dell Precision with dual socket Xeons ?
) .And if you bought a low-end early non-dual core Vista laptop -- sorry , just downgrade the system to XP .
You got screwed.4 ) UAC .
Yes -- UAC sucks , especially if you need to do any real adminstration on a Vista system .
I setup group policy on my corporate systems so that any administrator accounts had silent elevation , so UAC still ran but silently in the background .
For home systems , sometimes I just turned the annoying bugger off.It 's easier to tone it down in Win7 .
At these levels , it does n't pop up constantly , and probably is no more annoying than security prompts in OS X or having to sudo everywhere in Linux.5 ) The UI.And yes , I 've been using Win7 on my laptop for a month .
I 'm still not completely happy with some of the UI changes vs. XP. ( Vista of course had the same problem .
Microsoft broke design conventions that existed since Windows 3.0 or so .
Vista made items harder to reach -- requiring 5 clicks instead of 2 or 3 .
And so forth .
) But the UI in Win7 is more polished and less annoying than Vista .
I still miss the classic start menu , but I 'm missing it less and less .
And I could n't live without the Quick Start bar .
It can be somewhat easily faked in Win7 .
And no , pinning icons to the task bar is not the same -- they take up lots , lots more screen real est</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista's big problems vs. Win71) Drivers.
Driver model changed from XP to Vista.
Lots of devices at Vista's beginning either didn't have drivers or had buggy/crappy drivers.
Win7 uses Vista's driver model, so most Vista drivers will work on it.
And since Vista has been "gold" for almost 3 years, drivers exist for most devices made in the last 4-5 years.
(Past that, well, still good luck.
If a device was really popular or the device/chipset manufacturer is good, maybe you have drivers.
)Note that this may changes a LOT if you go from 32-bit to 64-bit.
64-bit drivers may or may not work well on your system.
My personal experience was with a Toshiba Satellite laptop.
Utterly unstable BSOD city with 64-bit Win7, even with official drivers.
Installed 32-bit instead and the system is rock solid stable.
I'd rather be running 64-bit, but not if the system becomes unbootable within a day.2) File copying.
For me, pre-SP1 Vista was completely broken just for the file transfer issues.
Transferring files to/from my corporate network took 20x (more?
) that of XP.
Completely unacceptable and a total deal breaker.
(And I don't know how or why this critical bug ever escaped beta.
Don't people at Microsoft actually transfer files on their networks???
)3) Performance.
Vista was significantly slower than XP, and was pushed onto machines that were completely overwhelmed by this.
Even more "hefty" systems struggled.
The internal memos on this at Microsoft were classic.
People bought $2000 laptops that were much slower than their 2 or 3 year old previous laptops.
Vista performance stank.
And RAM requirements were underplayed.
XP runs fine with 512mb - 1gb of RAM (depending on your usage).
Vista needs double that, but some of the original Vista systems had only 512mb.Vista after SP1 (and some more updates) improved quite a bit on it's performance.
Win7 is faster than Vista as well.
OK, it's not as fast as XP.
But the gulf between XP and Win7 is nowhere as vast as that between Win XP and Vista back in 2006-2007.We're also 3 years along with Moore's law.
Dual-cores are common.
Some even have triple and quad cores.
Graphics cards are much better as well.
So average system power is much higher and more capable of shouldering additional computing burdens.So Win7 should run well on most 2007+ systems (except for lower-end netbooks), especially if you up the ram to 2gb.
Ram is dirt cheap these days, and almost all systems come with at least 1gb of ram.
Even many consumer systems sell with 2gb or 3gb of ram.I still wouldn't try to use it on anything other than really high-end "workstation" systems from pre-2006 (e.g., got a Dell Precision with dual socket Xeons?
).And if you bought a low-end early non-dual core Vista laptop -- sorry, just downgrade the system to XP.
You got screwed.4) UAC.
Yes -- UAC sucks, especially if you need to do any real adminstration on a Vista system.
I setup group policy on my corporate systems so that any administrator accounts had silent elevation, so UAC still ran but silently in the background.
For home systems, sometimes I just turned the annoying bugger off.It's easier to tone it down in Win7.
At these levels, it doesn't pop up constantly, and probably is no more annoying than security prompts in OS X or having to sudo everywhere in Linux.5) The UI.And yes, I've been using Win7 on my laptop for a month.
I'm still not completely happy with some of the UI changes vs. XP.  (Vista of course had the same problem.
Microsoft broke design conventions that existed since Windows 3.0 or so.
Vista made items harder to reach -- requiring 5 clicks instead of 2 or 3.
And so forth.
)  But the UI in Win7 is more polished and less annoying than Vista.
I still miss the classic start menu, but I'm missing it less and less.
And I couldn't live without the Quick Start bar.
It can be somewhat easily faked in Win7.
And no, pinning icons to the task bar is not the same -- they take up lots, lots more screen real est</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721513</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>JStegmaier</author>
	<datestamp>1255373880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>XP didn't exactly push me to Linux--I just tried Linux on a lark, and found it so much better than XP I switched over fully. I went without Windows at all for about three years.<br> <br>Then, about a year ago, I bought a new laptop that came with Vista. My plan was just to install Linux over it, but the more I used Vista the more I came to appreciate that Microsoft had finally made decent operating system (I didn't use Vista back when it had a lot of trouble, pre-Service Pack 1, so I don't have the negative experiences a lot of people have.)<br> <br>Vista didn't exactly make me switch back (I still run Linux on everything, but I use Vista quite a bit on my laptop), but I'd take it over any other version of Windows out there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP did n't exactly push me to Linux--I just tried Linux on a lark , and found it so much better than XP I switched over fully .
I went without Windows at all for about three years .
Then , about a year ago , I bought a new laptop that came with Vista .
My plan was just to install Linux over it , but the more I used Vista the more I came to appreciate that Microsoft had finally made decent operating system ( I did n't use Vista back when it had a lot of trouble , pre-Service Pack 1 , so I do n't have the negative experiences a lot of people have .
) Vista did n't exactly make me switch back ( I still run Linux on everything , but I use Vista quite a bit on my laptop ) , but I 'd take it over any other version of Windows out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP didn't exactly push me to Linux--I just tried Linux on a lark, and found it so much better than XP I switched over fully.
I went without Windows at all for about three years.
Then, about a year ago, I bought a new laptop that came with Vista.
My plan was just to install Linux over it, but the more I used Vista the more I came to appreciate that Microsoft had finally made decent operating system (I didn't use Vista back when it had a lot of trouble, pre-Service Pack 1, so I don't have the negative experiences a lot of people have.
) Vista didn't exactly make me switch back (I still run Linux on everything, but I use Vista quite a bit on my laptop), but I'd take it over any other version of Windows out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>UberLaff</author>
	<datestamp>1255365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>XP pushed me to Linux. Strangely, Vista brought me back. I think I'm the only person on the Internet who made that switch...</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP pushed me to Linux .
Strangely , Vista brought me back .
I think I 'm the only person on the Internet who made that switch.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP pushed me to Linux.
Strangely, Vista brought me back.
I think I'm the only person on the Internet who made that switch...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719209</id>
	<title>Vista</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1255364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dont think Vista was that bad OS after a little bit more powerful hardware came out and after you got used to it. It feels a bit more sluggish than XP but that's what Win7 improves with their move responsive UI (which is really important thing that always seems to be forgotten - just compare Opera to Firefox)</p><p>Everyone who have started using Win7 already are saying it's great. Even those who skipped Vista completely. Personally I will probably move from Vista once I get a new computer - I dont want to do an update nor move all the files and settings in place and install new programs right now (and more so because I will probably get a new computer soon anyway)</p><p>One of the failure points for Vista was that all the drivers had to be redone and released for it. Even if it's a better thing now that it happened, it was bad to be in the first ones. But this time they all work in Win7 too, so that's not an issue.</p><p>What comes to UAC, it's the correct direction, but lots of Windows userbase is general audience which would get annoyed with such in Linux and other OS too. Atleast it's there now, and those who dont like it can disable it.</p><p>Most of the problems with Vista was actually that it was taking Windows OS into new direction and probably needed that one OS release in between to get there and so that users get familiar and used with it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont think Vista was that bad OS after a little bit more powerful hardware came out and after you got used to it .
It feels a bit more sluggish than XP but that 's what Win7 improves with their move responsive UI ( which is really important thing that always seems to be forgotten - just compare Opera to Firefox ) Everyone who have started using Win7 already are saying it 's great .
Even those who skipped Vista completely .
Personally I will probably move from Vista once I get a new computer - I dont want to do an update nor move all the files and settings in place and install new programs right now ( and more so because I will probably get a new computer soon anyway ) One of the failure points for Vista was that all the drivers had to be redone and released for it .
Even if it 's a better thing now that it happened , it was bad to be in the first ones .
But this time they all work in Win7 too , so that 's not an issue.What comes to UAC , it 's the correct direction , but lots of Windows userbase is general audience which would get annoyed with such in Linux and other OS too .
Atleast it 's there now , and those who dont like it can disable it.Most of the problems with Vista was actually that it was taking Windows OS into new direction and probably needed that one OS release in between to get there and so that users get familiar and used with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont think Vista was that bad OS after a little bit more powerful hardware came out and after you got used to it.
It feels a bit more sluggish than XP but that's what Win7 improves with their move responsive UI (which is really important thing that always seems to be forgotten - just compare Opera to Firefox)Everyone who have started using Win7 already are saying it's great.
Even those who skipped Vista completely.
Personally I will probably move from Vista once I get a new computer - I dont want to do an update nor move all the files and settings in place and install new programs right now (and more so because I will probably get a new computer soon anyway)One of the failure points for Vista was that all the drivers had to be redone and released for it.
Even if it's a better thing now that it happened, it was bad to be in the first ones.
But this time they all work in Win7 too, so that's not an issue.What comes to UAC, it's the correct direction, but lots of Windows userbase is general audience which would get annoyed with such in Linux and other OS too.
Atleast it's there now, and those who dont like it can disable it.Most of the problems with Vista was actually that it was taking Windows OS into new direction and probably needed that one OS release in between to get there and so that users get familiar and used with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29728287</id>
	<title>Re:Painful decision</title>
	<author>fermion</author>
	<datestamp>1255366380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For many users, the only reason to run MS Windows is that it runs the apps that support the business. The main mistake that MS made is that in enterprise wouldbuy MS Vista because they want MS Vista, and will buy whatever hardware and software is needed to support it.  They soon learned the reality.  Almost no one cares about the OS, just that the OS runs the mission critical apps. Therefore, when Vista did not run the mission critical apps, and the favorite hardware,Vista was a no go.
<p>
One hears a lot of good thing about vista. I have used it and it seems fine.  However I don't use for anything critical because it does not work with too many things. Why would a rational business spend money on a product that does not support the profit goals?  It is very difficult to make the case that Vista is so good that one should spends thousands of dollars to replace everything to support it.
</p><p>
Here is why MS Windows 7 might be ok: because vendors have had time to make it work.  The amount of hardware tied to MS Windows is almost non existent, most uses standard interfaces.  Software has been rewritten to support MS Vista, and presumable MS Windows 7. Likely all my critical applications will work with MS Windows 7, although some web based stuff may have problems with the latest IE.
</p><p>
All in all, MS may be doing it's job, which is to be an inexpensive OS that allows us to do work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For many users , the only reason to run MS Windows is that it runs the apps that support the business .
The main mistake that MS made is that in enterprise wouldbuy MS Vista because they want MS Vista , and will buy whatever hardware and software is needed to support it .
They soon learned the reality .
Almost no one cares about the OS , just that the OS runs the mission critical apps .
Therefore , when Vista did not run the mission critical apps , and the favorite hardware,Vista was a no go .
One hears a lot of good thing about vista .
I have used it and it seems fine .
However I do n't use for anything critical because it does not work with too many things .
Why would a rational business spend money on a product that does not support the profit goals ?
It is very difficult to make the case that Vista is so good that one should spends thousands of dollars to replace everything to support it .
Here is why MS Windows 7 might be ok : because vendors have had time to make it work .
The amount of hardware tied to MS Windows is almost non existent , most uses standard interfaces .
Software has been rewritten to support MS Vista , and presumable MS Windows 7 .
Likely all my critical applications will work with MS Windows 7 , although some web based stuff may have problems with the latest IE .
All in all , MS may be doing it 's job , which is to be an inexpensive OS that allows us to do work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For many users, the only reason to run MS Windows is that it runs the apps that support the business.
The main mistake that MS made is that in enterprise wouldbuy MS Vista because they want MS Vista, and will buy whatever hardware and software is needed to support it.
They soon learned the reality.
Almost no one cares about the OS, just that the OS runs the mission critical apps.
Therefore, when Vista did not run the mission critical apps, and the favorite hardware,Vista was a no go.
One hears a lot of good thing about vista.
I have used it and it seems fine.
However I don't use for anything critical because it does not work with too many things.
Why would a rational business spend money on a product that does not support the profit goals?
It is very difficult to make the case that Vista is so good that one should spends thousands of dollars to replace everything to support it.
Here is why MS Windows 7 might be ok: because vendors have had time to make it work.
The amount of hardware tied to MS Windows is almost non existent, most uses standard interfaces.
Software has been rewritten to support MS Vista, and presumable MS Windows 7.
Likely all my critical applications will work with MS Windows 7, although some web based stuff may have problems with the latest IE.
All in all, MS may be doing it's job, which is to be an inexpensive OS that allows us to do work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720565</id>
	<title>Re:Well color me savvy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255370520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could you please post a link to your old post? I'd love to read it and the reactions to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could you please post a link to your old post ?
I 'd love to read it and the reactions to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could you please post a link to your old post?
I'd love to read it and the reactions to it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720961</id>
	<title>Re:Message control, message control, message contr</title>
	<author>Shagg</author>
	<datestamp>1255372080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Really, Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim: in fact, that's precisely what they did.</p></div><p>Exactly.  Windows 7 is just Vista SP3.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim : in fact , that 's precisely what they did.Exactly .
Windows 7 is just Vista SP3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, Microsoft could just rebrand Vista as Windows 7 and release it today to great acclaim: in fact, that's precisely what they did.Exactly.
Windows 7 is just Vista SP3.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720329</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1255369440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>By which time, the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market.</p></div><p>I disagree.  I don't think they'll completely change it.  Some people like big screens and keyboard you can actually type on.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By which time , the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market.I disagree .
I do n't think they 'll completely change it .
Some people like big screens and keyboard you can actually type on .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By which time, the OS on the desktop will be irrelevant siince Netbooks will completely change the dynamics of the OS market.I disagree.
I don't think they'll completely change it.
Some people like big screens and keyboard you can actually type on.
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722305</id>
	<title>Re:Message control, message control, message contr</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1255376760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it so hard for the fanboys to understand?</p><p>It's not so much that Vista sucks. It just that Vista does not offer any substantial improvement. There is no compelling reason to upgrade.</p><p>It is like saying: "Obama is not a terrible president, but certainly has not done anything to deserve a nobel prize."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it so hard for the fanboys to understand ? It 's not so much that Vista sucks .
It just that Vista does not offer any substantial improvement .
There is no compelling reason to upgrade.It is like saying : " Obama is not a terrible president , but certainly has not done anything to deserve a nobel prize .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it so hard for the fanboys to understand?It's not so much that Vista sucks.
It just that Vista does not offer any substantial improvement.
There is no compelling reason to upgrade.It is like saying: "Obama is not a terrible president, but certainly has not done anything to deserve a nobel prize.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722455</id>
	<title>tl;dr, no one cares, but here's mine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255377420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been forced to use vista at work for the past month or so.  Here are the things I hate, mostly from the first week.  Keep in mind this is based on using 2000 and XP, and having certain expectations about how Windows in general is supposed to work.  No one's going to read this, that's fine, I'm just spitting in a hurricane.</p><ol> <li>Explorer - if a heavy IO operation is in the background, explorer frequently says "not responding".  I want that in the background, and regardless of IO settings, I should be able to browse the disk.  What if the only way to stop the IO is a control panel, or an application I have to dig for?  Like a virus scanner, which you can't run Windows without.  We have a deadlock.  It's the shell of the OS, not some random application.</li><li>I still can't tell what's highlighted.  Which is the current active window?  Which folder is highlighted in Explorer?  Should this be useful out of the box, or should every user have to adjust this?</li><li>Search - I don't even know where to begin.  "Search in files" only finds text in a known file type with a filter for it.  Search happens only in indexed locations by default.  So it won't find the program I just downloaded, but it will look for that term in my e-mail?  You should at least be able to click "Advanced Search" instead of having to find the non-button-looking button.  I can't tell if it's looking for a file name or in the contents of files.  It's just plain unintuitive.  I still have no idea where I'm searching.</li><li>"Folder Options" used to have a tab to manage file types.  Vista moved this into a Defaults control panel, and you can no longer manage behaviours.  Anything beyond the default "Open" action has to be done in the registry, which Microsoft says is dangerous and could cause the OS to stop working.  This is reduced functionality, affecting how the OS interacts with files, which is pretty much the definition of a GUI shell.</li><li>"Add and remove programs" renamed to "Programs" or "Programs and features" for classic view, invalidating millions of documents and confusing users.  Going in further to Windows components, using IIS as an example.  You can turn on or off IIS options, directly from the Windows Components dialog - you can turn your web server Directory Listing on or off through the operating system control panel.  Isn't that just a little too integrated?  We just added more places you have to look to repair a malfunctioning application!</li><li>Search *STILL* includes shortcuts.  I search for *.vsd and I get shortcuts.  What purpose does this serve?  If the documents exist they will be found.  Otherwise the shortcut will point nowhere and be useless.  You can't sort shortcuts either, they are all type "Shortcut".  So you can't remove your audio file shortcuts and leave your excel file shortcuts.  If I search for "xls" maybe that should return shortcuts, but *.xls is very specific.</li><li>Explorer: Very hard to select a column heading to change the width, because the completely unnecessary Sort selector is right next to it.</li><li>Drop object into command prompt to avoid retyping it.  Dropped because high-security areas do not accept messages from low-security areas, design was fixed for win7</li><li>"Copy as Path" and "Open Command Prompt here" are only available when shift-clicking.  Also not available on left side of explorer view</li><li>Alt-Enter doesn't work in left side of explorer pane</li><li>Not clear if the highlighted folder in left pane of explorer is the currently selected one - the selected and current highlights are nearly transparent by themselves, and only slightly different from each other.  Makes it easy to accidentally delete a bunch of stuff</li><li>Mouse scroll-wheel does not work in explorer left pane, automatic scrolling is supposed to make things easier.  But so does a mouse.</li><li>Explorer: Backspace is the same as CTRL+Left Arrow, making users use the different "ALT+UP"<br>- duplicated functionality, users have to retrain their muscle memory.  Makes sense, but loyal Windows users are</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been forced to use vista at work for the past month or so .
Here are the things I hate , mostly from the first week .
Keep in mind this is based on using 2000 and XP , and having certain expectations about how Windows in general is supposed to work .
No one 's going to read this , that 's fine , I 'm just spitting in a hurricane .
Explorer - if a heavy IO operation is in the background , explorer frequently says " not responding " .
I want that in the background , and regardless of IO settings , I should be able to browse the disk .
What if the only way to stop the IO is a control panel , or an application I have to dig for ?
Like a virus scanner , which you ca n't run Windows without .
We have a deadlock .
It 's the shell of the OS , not some random application.I still ca n't tell what 's highlighted .
Which is the current active window ?
Which folder is highlighted in Explorer ?
Should this be useful out of the box , or should every user have to adjust this ? Search - I do n't even know where to begin .
" Search in files " only finds text in a known file type with a filter for it .
Search happens only in indexed locations by default .
So it wo n't find the program I just downloaded , but it will look for that term in my e-mail ?
You should at least be able to click " Advanced Search " instead of having to find the non-button-looking button .
I ca n't tell if it 's looking for a file name or in the contents of files .
It 's just plain unintuitive .
I still have no idea where I 'm searching .
" Folder Options " used to have a tab to manage file types .
Vista moved this into a Defaults control panel , and you can no longer manage behaviours .
Anything beyond the default " Open " action has to be done in the registry , which Microsoft says is dangerous and could cause the OS to stop working .
This is reduced functionality , affecting how the OS interacts with files , which is pretty much the definition of a GUI shell .
" Add and remove programs " renamed to " Programs " or " Programs and features " for classic view , invalidating millions of documents and confusing users .
Going in further to Windows components , using IIS as an example .
You can turn on or off IIS options , directly from the Windows Components dialog - you can turn your web server Directory Listing on or off through the operating system control panel .
Is n't that just a little too integrated ?
We just added more places you have to look to repair a malfunctioning application ! Search * STILL * includes shortcuts .
I search for * .vsd and I get shortcuts .
What purpose does this serve ?
If the documents exist they will be found .
Otherwise the shortcut will point nowhere and be useless .
You ca n't sort shortcuts either , they are all type " Shortcut " .
So you ca n't remove your audio file shortcuts and leave your excel file shortcuts .
If I search for " xls " maybe that should return shortcuts , but * .xls is very specific.Explorer : Very hard to select a column heading to change the width , because the completely unnecessary Sort selector is right next to it.Drop object into command prompt to avoid retyping it .
Dropped because high-security areas do not accept messages from low-security areas , design was fixed for win7 " Copy as Path " and " Open Command Prompt here " are only available when shift-clicking .
Also not available on left side of explorer viewAlt-Enter does n't work in left side of explorer paneNot clear if the highlighted folder in left pane of explorer is the currently selected one - the selected and current highlights are nearly transparent by themselves , and only slightly different from each other .
Makes it easy to accidentally delete a bunch of stuffMouse scroll-wheel does not work in explorer left pane , automatic scrolling is supposed to make things easier .
But so does a mouse.Explorer : Backspace is the same as CTRL + Left Arrow , making users use the different " ALT + UP " - duplicated functionality , users have to retrain their muscle memory .
Makes sense , but loyal Windows users are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been forced to use vista at work for the past month or so.
Here are the things I hate, mostly from the first week.
Keep in mind this is based on using 2000 and XP, and having certain expectations about how Windows in general is supposed to work.
No one's going to read this, that's fine, I'm just spitting in a hurricane.
Explorer - if a heavy IO operation is in the background, explorer frequently says "not responding".
I want that in the background, and regardless of IO settings, I should be able to browse the disk.
What if the only way to stop the IO is a control panel, or an application I have to dig for?
Like a virus scanner, which you can't run Windows without.
We have a deadlock.
It's the shell of the OS, not some random application.I still can't tell what's highlighted.
Which is the current active window?
Which folder is highlighted in Explorer?
Should this be useful out of the box, or should every user have to adjust this?Search - I don't even know where to begin.
"Search in files" only finds text in a known file type with a filter for it.
Search happens only in indexed locations by default.
So it won't find the program I just downloaded, but it will look for that term in my e-mail?
You should at least be able to click "Advanced Search" instead of having to find the non-button-looking button.
I can't tell if it's looking for a file name or in the contents of files.
It's just plain unintuitive.
I still have no idea where I'm searching.
"Folder Options" used to have a tab to manage file types.
Vista moved this into a Defaults control panel, and you can no longer manage behaviours.
Anything beyond the default "Open" action has to be done in the registry, which Microsoft says is dangerous and could cause the OS to stop working.
This is reduced functionality, affecting how the OS interacts with files, which is pretty much the definition of a GUI shell.
"Add and remove programs" renamed to "Programs" or "Programs and features" for classic view, invalidating millions of documents and confusing users.
Going in further to Windows components, using IIS as an example.
You can turn on or off IIS options, directly from the Windows Components dialog - you can turn your web server Directory Listing on or off through the operating system control panel.
Isn't that just a little too integrated?
We just added more places you have to look to repair a malfunctioning application!Search *STILL* includes shortcuts.
I search for *.vsd and I get shortcuts.
What purpose does this serve?
If the documents exist they will be found.
Otherwise the shortcut will point nowhere and be useless.
You can't sort shortcuts either, they are all type "Shortcut".
So you can't remove your audio file shortcuts and leave your excel file shortcuts.
If I search for "xls" maybe that should return shortcuts, but *.xls is very specific.Explorer: Very hard to select a column heading to change the width, because the completely unnecessary Sort selector is right next to it.Drop object into command prompt to avoid retyping it.
Dropped because high-security areas do not accept messages from low-security areas, design was fixed for win7"Copy as Path" and "Open Command Prompt here" are only available when shift-clicking.
Also not available on left side of explorer viewAlt-Enter doesn't work in left side of explorer paneNot clear if the highlighted folder in left pane of explorer is the currently selected one - the selected and current highlights are nearly transparent by themselves, and only slightly different from each other.
Makes it easy to accidentally delete a bunch of stuffMouse scroll-wheel does not work in explorer left pane, automatic scrolling is supposed to make things easier.
But so does a mouse.Explorer: Backspace is the same as CTRL+Left Arrow, making users use the different "ALT+UP"- duplicated functionality, users have to retrain their muscle memory.
Makes sense, but loyal Windows users are</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723003</id>
	<title>Easy to change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255379640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XRandR lets you do that and there's a little application you can ask to be put in the command bar to do this.</p><p>PS if you do that so often, why not use Kubuntu? KDE uses Control Centre. Display -&gt; settings -&gt; change them.</p><p>Or did you buy basic and complain that it wouldn't connect to an AD?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XRandR lets you do that and there 's a little application you can ask to be put in the command bar to do this.PS if you do that so often , why not use Kubuntu ?
KDE uses Control Centre .
Display - &gt; settings - &gt; change them.Or did you buy basic and complain that it would n't connect to an AD ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XRandR lets you do that and there's a little application you can ask to be put in the command bar to do this.PS if you do that so often, why not use Kubuntu?
KDE uses Control Centre.
Display -&gt; settings -&gt; change them.Or did you buy basic and complain that it wouldn't connect to an AD?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719513</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is gay for Vista</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1255365600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gay? No.  I don't think we were happy about it, either. For one thing, when trying to connect to a wireless network via the wireless controls, the "Connect" button stays grayed out. WTF?!?! You have to connect via the regular networking software to get it to connect. There are some good things here and there but not gay about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gay ?
No. I do n't think we were happy about it , either .
For one thing , when trying to connect to a wireless network via the wireless controls , the " Connect " button stays grayed out .
WTF ? ! ? ! You have to connect via the regular networking software to get it to connect .
There are some good things here and there but not gay about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gay?
No.  I don't think we were happy about it, either.
For one thing, when trying to connect to a wireless network via the wireless controls, the "Connect" button stays grayed out.
WTF?!?! You have to connect via the regular networking software to get it to connect.
There are some good things here and there but not gay about it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719395</id>
	<title>All reviews are, of course, useful and impartial</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255365180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most reviews apparently aren't that thorough. They do what the salesweasels do: Install the thing on fancy new hardware, possibly well out of budget for joe average for the next half decade, click around a bit. That's all on a "clean" system, where windows has a well-known tendency to degrade over time, especially in the face of repeated de/installs, like, oh, with games. And that, a mere industry standard review doesn't catch.</p><p>What struck me about this crop of "reviews" was that most compared windows seven with windows vista, where most people were shunning the latter because it was so bad. I haven't seen a single in-depth review even so much as mention the thing "everyone" was actually using, windows XP. Curious, that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most reviews apparently are n't that thorough .
They do what the salesweasels do : Install the thing on fancy new hardware , possibly well out of budget for joe average for the next half decade , click around a bit .
That 's all on a " clean " system , where windows has a well-known tendency to degrade over time , especially in the face of repeated de/installs , like , oh , with games .
And that , a mere industry standard review does n't catch.What struck me about this crop of " reviews " was that most compared windows seven with windows vista , where most people were shunning the latter because it was so bad .
I have n't seen a single in-depth review even so much as mention the thing " everyone " was actually using , windows XP .
Curious , that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most reviews apparently aren't that thorough.
They do what the salesweasels do: Install the thing on fancy new hardware, possibly well out of budget for joe average for the next half decade, click around a bit.
That's all on a "clean" system, where windows has a well-known tendency to degrade over time, especially in the face of repeated de/installs, like, oh, with games.
And that, a mere industry standard review doesn't catch.What struck me about this crop of "reviews" was that most compared windows seven with windows vista, where most people were shunning the latter because it was so bad.
I haven't seen a single in-depth review even so much as mention the thing "everyone" was actually using, windows XP.
Curious, that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720363</id>
	<title>Windows Vista not.Capable lawsuit [</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1255369620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>"<i>Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology. The problem was that marketdroids<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability</i>", QuoteMstr <br> <br>

"More internal Microsoft e-mails were unsealed today in the <a href="http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2008/11/Another\_big\_batch\_of\_Microsoft\_e-mails34836844.html" title="techflash.com">Windows Vista Capable lawsuit</a> [techflash.com], detailing the wrangling that took place inside the company and across the industry before and after the operating system's January 2007 launch. The plaintiffs are using the messages to support their contention that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was involved enough in decisions to warrant a deposition"<br> <br>

'<i>The "Vista sucks" meme, however, spread virally because 1) we all love to hate Microsoft, and 2) most users really can't tell the difference between good technology and bad</i>', QuoteMstr <br> <br>

The "Vista sucks" meme spread becasue Vista did really suck, really<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br> <br>

"<i>From: Stevan Sinofsky<br>
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:08 PM<br>
To: Steve Ballmer Cc: Bill Veghte; Jon Devaan<br>
Subject: Re: Vista<br> <br>

A lot of changes led many <a href="http://assets.bizjournals.com/seattle/pdf/techflash/1120mails.pdf" title="bizjournals.com">Windows XP drivers</a> [bizjournals.com] not really working at all - this across the board for printers, scanners, wan, accessories (fingerprint readers, smartcards, tv tuners), and so on</i>"</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology .
The problem was that marketdroids .. outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability " , QuoteMstr " More internal Microsoft e-mails were unsealed today in the Windows Vista Capable lawsuit [ techflash.com ] , detailing the wrangling that took place inside the company and across the industry before and after the operating system 's January 2007 launch .
The plaintiffs are using the messages to support their contention that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was involved enough in decisions to warrant a deposition " 'The " Vista sucks " meme , however , spread virally because 1 ) we all love to hate Microsoft , and 2 ) most users really ca n't tell the difference between good technology and bad ' , QuoteMstr The " Vista sucks " meme spread becasue Vista did really suck , really : ) " From : Stevan Sinofsky Sent : Sunday , February 18 , 2007 12 : 08 PM To : Steve Ballmer Cc : Bill Veghte ; Jon Devaan Subject : Re : Vista A lot of changes led many Windows XP drivers [ bizjournals.com ] not really working at all - this across the board for printers , scanners , wan , accessories ( fingerprint readers , smartcards , tv tuners ) , and so on "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Vista sucking has a lot more to do with sociology than technology.
The problem was that marketdroids .. outright lied about the user experience at some levels of hardware capability", QuoteMstr  

"More internal Microsoft e-mails were unsealed today in the Windows Vista Capable lawsuit [techflash.com], detailing the wrangling that took place inside the company and across the industry before and after the operating system's January 2007 launch.
The plaintiffs are using the messages to support their contention that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was involved enough in decisions to warrant a deposition" 

'The "Vista sucks" meme, however, spread virally because 1) we all love to hate Microsoft, and 2) most users really can't tell the difference between good technology and bad', QuoteMstr  

The "Vista sucks" meme spread becasue Vista did really suck, really :) 

"From: Stevan Sinofsky
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:08 PM
To: Steve Ballmer Cc: Bill Veghte; Jon Devaan
Subject: Re: Vista 

A lot of changes led many Windows XP drivers [bizjournals.com] not really working at all - this across the board for printers, scanners, wan, accessories (fingerprint readers, smartcards, tv tuners), and so on"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719957</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1255367520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment. So I'm happy using Windows at work, and Mac OS X at home.</i></p><p>I don't know about you, but I often have to fiddle with both WinXP and Vista to get things to work.</p><p>I mean its not something a 30 second Google query couldn't fix, but issues with both the UAC and the auto rebooting on updates without asking or warning when running a full screen game basically made me go "UNGGGGGH!"</p><p>As far as fiddling with OS X... Not so much. I fiddled with the X11 to get it working the way I wanted out of the box.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I 'm using my computer , I do n't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment .
So I 'm happy using Windows at work , and Mac OS X at home.I do n't know about you , but I often have to fiddle with both WinXP and Vista to get things to work.I mean its not something a 30 second Google query could n't fix , but issues with both the UAC and the auto rebooting on updates without asking or warning when running a full screen game basically made me go " UNGGGGGH !
" As far as fiddling with OS X... Not so much .
I fiddled with the X11 to get it working the way I wanted out of the box .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I'm using my computer, I don't want to spend time fiddling with the OS and desktop environment.
So I'm happy using Windows at work, and Mac OS X at home.I don't know about you, but I often have to fiddle with both WinXP and Vista to get things to work.I mean its not something a 30 second Google query couldn't fix, but issues with both the UAC and the auto rebooting on updates without asking or warning when running a full screen game basically made me go "UNGGGGGH!
"As far as fiddling with OS X... Not so much.
I fiddled with the X11 to get it working the way I wanted out of the box.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725293</id>
	<title>Re:WinMe drove me towards Linux</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1255346400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For me it was Windows XP - it was just slower (in gaming) than Windows 98 on the same hardware...</htmltext>
<tokenext>For me it was Windows XP - it was just slower ( in gaming ) than Windows 98 on the same hardware.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For me it was Windows XP - it was just slower (in gaming) than Windows 98 on the same hardware...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720327</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719303</id>
	<title>Slashdot is gay for Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And MS in general.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And MS in general .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And MS in general.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719461</id>
	<title>independent or advocates?</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1255365420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most reviewers get their "stuff" from the suppliers. They have a vested interest in being nice to the suppliers - to get more stuff, freebies, invitations, early access, privileged information and maybe even paid work. There is no way the public should expect more from them than glowing promotion of the good and no mention of the bad. Sadly, ther reviews don't tell people this.
<p>
When I see a website that accepts no advertising, buys all it's products for cash, anonymously from retail stores and has a test suite that reflects what actual users actually do, then their reviews will have merit (although I can't see anyone anywhere paying the hue cover price for such a publication) Until then, print and online sources are far too cosy with the suppliers to get anything objective from them. It would be too much to ask for them to criticise their advertisers - the sucking sound you'd hear would be next month's full-page spreads being pulled.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most reviewers get their " stuff " from the suppliers .
They have a vested interest in being nice to the suppliers - to get more stuff , freebies , invitations , early access , privileged information and maybe even paid work .
There is no way the public should expect more from them than glowing promotion of the good and no mention of the bad .
Sadly , ther reviews do n't tell people this .
When I see a website that accepts no advertising , buys all it 's products for cash , anonymously from retail stores and has a test suite that reflects what actual users actually do , then their reviews will have merit ( although I ca n't see anyone anywhere paying the hue cover price for such a publication ) Until then , print and online sources are far too cosy with the suppliers to get anything objective from them .
It would be too much to ask for them to criticise their advertisers - the sucking sound you 'd hear would be next month 's full-page spreads being pulled .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most reviewers get their "stuff" from the suppliers.
They have a vested interest in being nice to the suppliers - to get more stuff, freebies, invitations, early access, privileged information and maybe even paid work.
There is no way the public should expect more from them than glowing promotion of the good and no mention of the bad.
Sadly, ther reviews don't tell people this.
When I see a website that accepts no advertising, buys all it's products for cash, anonymously from retail stores and has a test suite that reflects what actual users actually do, then their reviews will have merit (although I can't see anyone anywhere paying the hue cover price for such a publication) Until then, print and online sources are far too cosy with the suppliers to get anything objective from them.
It would be too much to ask for them to criticise their advertisers - the sucking sound you'd hear would be next month's full-page spreads being pulled.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29727971</id>
	<title>Vista, Win 7 doesnt matter to me</title>
	<author>anonymous9991</author>
	<datestamp>1255363260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use Linux except for games, and the games I have some of them dont run on anything but XP, so I will not be buying Vista or Win7. In fact I just bought another Windows XP Machine just to be safe.  If you could run my apps I would switch but if not I have no reason to use it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Linux except for games , and the games I have some of them dont run on anything but XP , so I will not be buying Vista or Win7 .
In fact I just bought another Windows XP Machine just to be safe .
If you could run my apps I would switch but if not I have no reason to use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Linux except for games, and the games I have some of them dont run on anything but XP, so I will not be buying Vista or Win7.
In fact I just bought another Windows XP Machine just to be safe.
If you could run my apps I would switch but if not I have no reason to use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722817</id>
	<title>Re:Vista was fine, I blame Apple</title>
	<author>Spaseboy</author>
	<datestamp>1255378920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ROFLMFAO!</p><p>Yes, Microsoft had an incredible product and it was marketing that ruined it.</p><p>Wasn't that the sad old song IBM sang about OS/2?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ROFLMFAO ! Yes , Microsoft had an incredible product and it was marketing that ruined it.Was n't that the sad old song IBM sang about OS/2 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ROFLMFAO!Yes, Microsoft had an incredible product and it was marketing that ruined it.Wasn't that the sad old song IBM sang about OS/2?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720109</id>
	<title>Windows $NEXT\_VERSION will pwn all</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1255368300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every review of Windows since 1994 has been the exact same. Just fill in the variables:

</p><p>" I have seen the future: Windows $NEXT\_VERSION Milestone $MOCKUP.

</p><p>"I am so excited about $NEXT\_VERSION of Windows. It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT\_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm. Forget about security problems, those are all fixed in $NEXT\_VERSION. And they&rsquo;re finally ridding themselves of $ANCIENT\_LEGACY\_STUFF.

</p><p>"Also, there&rsquo;ll be $DATABASE\_FILESYSTEM. It&rsquo;ll be awesome!

</p><p>"I wonder how $NEXT\_VERSION will compare to $NEXT\_NEXT\_VERSION.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every review of Windows since 1994 has been the exact same .
Just fill in the variables : " I have seen the future : Windows $ NEXT \ _VERSION Milestone $ MOCKUP .
" I am so excited about $ NEXT \ _VERSION of Windows .
It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $ CURRENT \ _VERSION , it will be an entirely new paradigm .
Forget about security problems , those are all fixed in $ NEXT \ _VERSION .
And they    re finally ridding themselves of $ ANCIENT \ _LEGACY \ _STUFF .
" Also , there    ll be $ DATABASE \ _FILESYSTEM .
It    ll be awesome !
" I wonder how $ NEXT \ _VERSION will compare to $ NEXT \ _NEXT \ _VERSION .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every review of Windows since 1994 has been the exact same.
Just fill in the variables:

" I have seen the future: Windows $NEXT\_VERSION Milestone $MOCKUP.
"I am so excited about $NEXT\_VERSION of Windows.
It will go beyond just solving all of the problems with $CURRENT\_VERSION, it will be an entirely new paradigm.
Forget about security problems, those are all fixed in $NEXT\_VERSION.
And they’re finally ridding themselves of $ANCIENT\_LEGACY\_STUFF.
"Also, there’ll be $DATABASE\_FILESYSTEM.
It’ll be awesome!
"I wonder how $NEXT\_VERSION will compare to $NEXT\_NEXT\_VERSION.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721553</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>FreelanceWizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255374000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I manage an Enterprise Agreement for 250 seats. The minute we upgrade our ShoreTel VOIP system to the new Shoreware version with Windows 7 support, we're done with XP. We're going to begin reimaging all computers with Windows 7 Enterprise using WDS.</p><p>Why, you might ask? Windows 7 offers a ton of advancements for the enterprise, from DirectAccess (for always-on VPNs) to improved terminal services and application virtualization (MED-V) and BranchCache (like Offline Files, but better). Additionally, it's got a cleaner interface and, in our tests, runs a smidge faster than XP for office applications on our new Core 2 desktops. Another plus is that we don't have to include drivers in our WDS image, since Windows 7 supports almost every network device I've thrown at it out of the box, and whatever other drivers it needs to download, it can grab during setup.</p><p>Admittedly, 250 seats isn't huge and the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of businesses with EAs and Software Assurance are going to snap up Windows 7. It's a major improvement over XP, and both users and sysadmins like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I manage an Enterprise Agreement for 250 seats .
The minute we upgrade our ShoreTel VOIP system to the new Shoreware version with Windows 7 support , we 're done with XP .
We 're going to begin reimaging all computers with Windows 7 Enterprise using WDS.Why , you might ask ?
Windows 7 offers a ton of advancements for the enterprise , from DirectAccess ( for always-on VPNs ) to improved terminal services and application virtualization ( MED-V ) and BranchCache ( like Offline Files , but better ) .
Additionally , it 's got a cleaner interface and , in our tests , runs a smidge faster than XP for office applications on our new Core 2 desktops .
Another plus is that we do n't have to include drivers in our WDS image , since Windows 7 supports almost every network device I 've thrown at it out of the box , and whatever other drivers it needs to download , it can grab during setup.Admittedly , 250 seats is n't huge and the plural of anecdote is n't data , but I think it 's fair to say that a lot of businesses with EAs and Software Assurance are going to snap up Windows 7 .
It 's a major improvement over XP , and both users and sysadmins like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I manage an Enterprise Agreement for 250 seats.
The minute we upgrade our ShoreTel VOIP system to the new Shoreware version with Windows 7 support, we're done with XP.
We're going to begin reimaging all computers with Windows 7 Enterprise using WDS.Why, you might ask?
Windows 7 offers a ton of advancements for the enterprise, from DirectAccess (for always-on VPNs) to improved terminal services and application virtualization (MED-V) and BranchCache (like Offline Files, but better).
Additionally, it's got a cleaner interface and, in our tests, runs a smidge faster than XP for office applications on our new Core 2 desktops.
Another plus is that we don't have to include drivers in our WDS image, since Windows 7 supports almost every network device I've thrown at it out of the box, and whatever other drivers it needs to download, it can grab during setup.Admittedly, 250 seats isn't huge and the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of businesses with EAs and Software Assurance are going to snap up Windows 7.
It's a major improvement over XP, and both users and sysadmins like it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719579</id>
	<title>Re:Follow The Money (from TFA)</title>
	<author>uassholes</author>
	<datestamp>1255365840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>PC World (lots of MS ads): <p><div class="quote"><p> <em>The bottom line?</em> "All in all, Windows Vista is a great leap forward for the operating system, with a much-improved, far more useful (and pleasurable) interface; faster, better search; beefed-up security that's a big improvement over Windows XP with SP2; and far, far better networking.</p></div><p>Forbes: </p><p><div class="quote"><p> <em>The bottom line?</em> "Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush to Redmond, Wash. and rip somebody's liver out...</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>PC World ( lots of MS ads ) : The bottom line ?
" All in all , Windows Vista is a great leap forward for the operating system , with a much-improved , far more useful ( and pleasurable ) interface ; faster , better search ; beefed-up security that 's a big improvement over Windows XP with SP2 ; and far , far better networking.Forbes : The bottom line ?
" Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush to Redmond , Wash. and rip somebody 's liver out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PC World (lots of MS ads):  The bottom line?
"All in all, Windows Vista is a great leap forward for the operating system, with a much-improved, far more useful (and pleasurable) interface; faster, better search; beefed-up security that's a big improvement over Windows XP with SP2; and far, far better networking.Forbes:  The bottom line?
"Vista is at best mildly annoying and at worst makes you want to rush to Redmond, Wash. and rip somebody's liver out...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719507</id>
	<title>Vista: A shiny, new XP Service Pack</title>
	<author>Greg\_J7</author>
	<datestamp>1255365600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Neither Microsoft or reviewers made a credible case to me that it was worth paying money for. Windows XP was working just fine for me. The media buzz made me feel like I was having to pay for a shiny, new XP service pack, not an OS that was going to enable me to do things *I wanted to do*, but couldn't do with XP.

The scary thing is that Windows XP is STILL working just fine for me!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither Microsoft or reviewers made a credible case to me that it was worth paying money for .
Windows XP was working just fine for me .
The media buzz made me feel like I was having to pay for a shiny , new XP service pack , not an OS that was going to enable me to do things * I wanted to do * , but could n't do with XP .
The scary thing is that Windows XP is STILL working just fine for me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither Microsoft or reviewers made a credible case to me that it was worth paying money for.
Windows XP was working just fine for me.
The media buzz made me feel like I was having to pay for a shiny, new XP service pack, not an OS that was going to enable me to do things *I wanted to do*, but couldn't do with XP.
The scary thing is that Windows XP is STILL working just fine for me!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720315</id>
	<title>Vista's reviews were just like Win7's reviews</title>
	<author>smitty97</author>
	<datestamp>1255369320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"just like" as in "copy and paste"</p><p>Mossberg on Vista: "I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced."<br>Mossberg on Win7: "I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced."</p><p><a href="http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/08/whats-wrong-with-windows-7/" title="cnn.com">http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/08/whats-wrong-with-windows-7/</a> [cnn.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" just like " as in " copy and paste " Mossberg on Vista : " I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced .
" Mossberg on Win7 : " I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced .
" http : //brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/08/whats-wrong-with-windows-7/ [ cnn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"just like" as in "copy and paste"Mossberg on Vista: "I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has produced.
"Mossberg on Win7: "I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft has produced.
"http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2009/10/08/whats-wrong-with-windows-7/ [cnn.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719605</id>
	<title>Re:Slashdot is gay for Vista</title>
	<author>roywfall</author>
	<datestamp>1255365960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And MS in general.</p></div><p>Interestingly - I tend to assign gender, mentally, to almost everything I deal with on a regular basis and in my mind,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is very male (as is WinXP), while Vista is female.  But then, maybe she (he) is a cross-dresser.

Or, by gay, did you just mean happy?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And MS in general.Interestingly - I tend to assign gender , mentally , to almost everything I deal with on a regular basis and in my mind , / .
is very male ( as is WinXP ) , while Vista is female .
But then , maybe she ( he ) is a cross-dresser .
Or , by gay , did you just mean happy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And MS in general.Interestingly - I tend to assign gender, mentally, to almost everything I deal with on a regular basis and in my mind, /.
is very male (as is WinXP), while Vista is female.
But then, maybe she (he) is a cross-dresser.
Or, by gay, did you just mean happy?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719303</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719803</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 reviews are no different....</title>
	<author>backwardMechanic</author>
	<datestamp>1255366740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I didn't realise the depth of Microsoft's problems until I found out that my university has a license to give away Windows 7 installs to all staff and students for home use for free. Oh, and we have officially skipped Vista across campus - no word on Win7 yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't realise the depth of Microsoft 's problems until I found out that my university has a license to give away Windows 7 installs to all staff and students for home use for free .
Oh , and we have officially skipped Vista across campus - no word on Win7 yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't realise the depth of Microsoft's problems until I found out that my university has a license to give away Windows 7 installs to all staff and students for home use for free.
Oh, and we have officially skipped Vista across campus - no word on Win7 yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719531</id>
	<title>Win7 has runs better and has better drivers</title>
	<author>griffinme</author>
	<datestamp>1255365720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried Vista but it was slow and half my hardware didn't work. The same computer runs Win7 without a problem with fewer driver issues. I have it running on 2 of three desktops at home. The wife gives me a funny look when ever I mention upgrading her computer or it would be three for three. This might have something to do with it. <a href="http://xkcd.com/349/" title="xkcd.com" rel="nofollow">http://xkcd.com/349/</a> [xkcd.com]</p><p>Its like win2k and xp. XP was really win2k done right. Win7 is vista done right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried Vista but it was slow and half my hardware did n't work .
The same computer runs Win7 without a problem with fewer driver issues .
I have it running on 2 of three desktops at home .
The wife gives me a funny look when ever I mention upgrading her computer or it would be three for three .
This might have something to do with it .
http : //xkcd.com/349/ [ xkcd.com ] Its like win2k and xp .
XP was really win2k done right .
Win7 is vista done right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried Vista but it was slow and half my hardware didn't work.
The same computer runs Win7 without a problem with fewer driver issues.
I have it running on 2 of three desktops at home.
The wife gives me a funny look when ever I mention upgrading her computer or it would be three for three.
This might have something to do with it.
http://xkcd.com/349/ [xkcd.com]Its like win2k and xp.
XP was really win2k done right.
Win7 is vista done right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719217</id>
	<title>Original slashdot readers review</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255364280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's sucks, it's terrible, I've never used it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sucks , it 's terrible , I 've never used it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sucks, it's terrible, I've never used it...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720327</id>
	<title>WinMe drove me towards Linux</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1255369440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Win7 Dragged me back into the Collective. Yes I started playing with Linux back when Caldera had released v:1.3 and I've still got my copy of it. Hell I've even got a copy of RH5, Mandrake 7 &amp; 8 on Disk (commercial CD's). In 2003, I switched almost full time to Gentoo as it gave me the control <b>I</b> wanted of <b>My</b> computer but after K3B failed on me in April, I gave up and grabbed the Win7-Beta images and gave it a spin. Currently, I'm using the Win7-RC as it's proven itself to be stable and supports all of my games without problems and you know what? It's unlikely I'll go back to Linux due to the loss of control and don't mention Debian to me. </p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>/rant It's almost impossible to setup a custom kernel without printing out 50 pages of docs to do it and no I don't like my system to use an Ramdisk Image to boot.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/end-rant</p><p>I actually like Win7 over Vista due to many improvements and yes it's closer to SP3 for Vista then a brand new OS. Of course as I didn't pay for Vista (got it through the Uni for free), I'm quite happy to pay for Win7 as it is a big improvement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Win7 Dragged me back into the Collective .
Yes I started playing with Linux back when Caldera had released v : 1.3 and I 've still got my copy of it .
Hell I 've even got a copy of RH5 , Mandrake 7 &amp; 8 on Disk ( commercial CD 's ) .
In 2003 , I switched almost full time to Gentoo as it gave me the control I wanted of My computer but after K3B failed on me in April , I gave up and grabbed the Win7-Beta images and gave it a spin .
Currently , I 'm using the Win7-RC as it 's proven itself to be stable and supports all of my games without problems and you know what ?
It 's unlikely I 'll go back to Linux due to the loss of control and do n't mention Debian to me .
/rant It 's almost impossible to setup a custom kernel without printing out 50 pages of docs to do it and no I do n't like my system to use an Ramdisk Image to boot .
/end-rantI actually like Win7 over Vista due to many improvements and yes it 's closer to SP3 for Vista then a brand new OS .
Of course as I did n't pay for Vista ( got it through the Uni for free ) , I 'm quite happy to pay for Win7 as it is a big improvement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Win7 Dragged me back into the Collective.
Yes I started playing with Linux back when Caldera had released v:1.3 and I've still got my copy of it.
Hell I've even got a copy of RH5, Mandrake 7 &amp; 8 on Disk (commercial CD's).
In 2003, I switched almost full time to Gentoo as it gave me the control I wanted of My computer but after K3B failed on me in April, I gave up and grabbed the Win7-Beta images and gave it a spin.
Currently, I'm using the Win7-RC as it's proven itself to be stable and supports all of my games without problems and you know what?
It's unlikely I'll go back to Linux due to the loss of control and don't mention Debian to me.
/rant It's almost impossible to setup a custom kernel without printing out 50 pages of docs to do it and no I don't like my system to use an Ramdisk Image to boot.
/end-rantI actually like Win7 over Vista due to many improvements and yes it's closer to SP3 for Vista then a brand new OS.
Of course as I didn't pay for Vista (got it through the Uni for free), I'm quite happy to pay for Win7 as it is a big improvement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722735</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255378620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm perfectly happy with my Vista right now.</p><p>I'm forced to use Linux in my Comp Sci classes and labs, and it's a pain in the ass.</p><p>Everything is rearranged just for the sake of rearranging stuff.</p><p>Why the fuck do you need to swap the OK and Cancel buttons? Why do you need to swap keys around on the keyboard?</p><p>That sort of "change for the sake of change" is what turns me off from Linux, even if it's not mandatory. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."</p><p>Got Vista long after SP1 came out, turned off UAC, turned off the security center (I did in XP too, I can manage my own Firewall and Antivirus, tyvm), and everything was gravy.</p><p>I love the new UI, XP looks so childish now, with the "bubbly" start bar, baby blue coloring, etc...</p><p>AND NO MORE PERMANENT BUBBLE POP UPS. God, those speech bubbles at the bottom of my screen in XP are even more annoying than Clippy.</p><p>The *only* problem I have with Vista is the search mechanic. It doesn't seem to WORK as well as XP's, it relies on the index too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm perfectly happy with my Vista right now.I 'm forced to use Linux in my Comp Sci classes and labs , and it 's a pain in the ass.Everything is rearranged just for the sake of rearranging stuff.Why the fuck do you need to swap the OK and Cancel buttons ?
Why do you need to swap keys around on the keyboard ? That sort of " change for the sake of change " is what turns me off from Linux , even if it 's not mandatory .
" If it ai n't broke , do n't fix it .
" Got Vista long after SP1 came out , turned off UAC , turned off the security center ( I did in XP too , I can manage my own Firewall and Antivirus , tyvm ) , and everything was gravy.I love the new UI , XP looks so childish now , with the " bubbly " start bar , baby blue coloring , etc...AND NO MORE PERMANENT BUBBLE POP UPS .
God , those speech bubbles at the bottom of my screen in XP are even more annoying than Clippy.The * only * problem I have with Vista is the search mechanic .
It does n't seem to WORK as well as XP 's , it relies on the index too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm perfectly happy with my Vista right now.I'm forced to use Linux in my Comp Sci classes and labs, and it's a pain in the ass.Everything is rearranged just for the sake of rearranging stuff.Why the fuck do you need to swap the OK and Cancel buttons?
Why do you need to swap keys around on the keyboard?That sort of "change for the sake of change" is what turns me off from Linux, even if it's not mandatory.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
"Got Vista long after SP1 came out, turned off UAC, turned off the security center (I did in XP too, I can manage my own Firewall and Antivirus, tyvm), and everything was gravy.I love the new UI, XP looks so childish now, with the "bubbly" start bar, baby blue coloring, etc...AND NO MORE PERMANENT BUBBLE POP UPS.
God, those speech bubbles at the bottom of my screen in XP are even more annoying than Clippy.The *only* problem I have with Vista is the search mechanic.
It doesn't seem to WORK as well as XP's, it relies on the index too much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719969</id>
	<title>The question...</title>
	<author>taskiss</author>
	<datestamp>1255367580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The question isn't "Is Windows 7 better than Vista"?, it is "Is Windows 7 better than XP"?</p><p>When first starting to build a new PC, I used to install my Windows NT 4.0 license (purchased in '97 or so) on it, and wiped and installed Linux on the old hardware. In '02 I purchased a license for XP and continued doing the same thing. I'll buy the next MS operating system when a better one comes out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The question is n't " Is Windows 7 better than Vista " ? , it is " Is Windows 7 better than XP " ? When first starting to build a new PC , I used to install my Windows NT 4.0 license ( purchased in '97 or so ) on it , and wiped and installed Linux on the old hardware .
In '02 I purchased a license for XP and continued doing the same thing .
I 'll buy the next MS operating system when a better one comes out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The question isn't "Is Windows 7 better than Vista"?, it is "Is Windows 7 better than XP"?When first starting to build a new PC, I used to install my Windows NT 4.0 license (purchased in '97 or so) on it, and wiped and installed Linux on the old hardware.
In '02 I purchased a license for XP and continued doing the same thing.
I'll buy the next MS operating system when a better one comes out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725735</id>
	<title>Windows 7 compatibility is a problem</title>
	<author>dtjohnson</author>
	<datestamp>1255348620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 has extremely low compatibility with past Windows software and hardware.  Basically, it cannot run any pre-Vista software unless you use the virtualized Windows XP ('XPM') add-on and that has some major limitations:  1) requires a cpu with virtual extensions 2) requires maintenance of the XP add-on as if it was another installation, and 3) even XPM has very limited legacy software support.  As for hardware, pre-vista hardware can not be used unless it is supported by a vendor who will release Windows 7 drivers which will likely only be the case for newer hardware that had a high original cost.  I wanted to run Windows 7 but it will basically require all new hardware and software which will limit its use for me to browsing the web and running Office until I can find Windows 7 replacements for all of the little apps that it will not run.  Hopefully, 3rd party companies will quickly develop software that will allow legacy apps to run until Windows 7 substitutes appear.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 has extremely low compatibility with past Windows software and hardware .
Basically , it can not run any pre-Vista software unless you use the virtualized Windows XP ( 'XPM ' ) add-on and that has some major limitations : 1 ) requires a cpu with virtual extensions 2 ) requires maintenance of the XP add-on as if it was another installation , and 3 ) even XPM has very limited legacy software support .
As for hardware , pre-vista hardware can not be used unless it is supported by a vendor who will release Windows 7 drivers which will likely only be the case for newer hardware that had a high original cost .
I wanted to run Windows 7 but it will basically require all new hardware and software which will limit its use for me to browsing the web and running Office until I can find Windows 7 replacements for all of the little apps that it will not run .
Hopefully , 3rd party companies will quickly develop software that will allow legacy apps to run until Windows 7 substitutes appear .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 has extremely low compatibility with past Windows software and hardware.
Basically, it cannot run any pre-Vista software unless you use the virtualized Windows XP ('XPM') add-on and that has some major limitations:  1) requires a cpu with virtual extensions 2) requires maintenance of the XP add-on as if it was another installation, and 3) even XPM has very limited legacy software support.
As for hardware, pre-vista hardware can not be used unless it is supported by a vendor who will release Windows 7 drivers which will likely only be the case for newer hardware that had a high original cost.
I wanted to run Windows 7 but it will basically require all new hardware and software which will limit its use for me to browsing the web and running Office until I can find Windows 7 replacements for all of the little apps that it will not run.
Hopefully, 3rd party companies will quickly develop software that will allow legacy apps to run until Windows 7 substitutes appear.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29726909</id>
	<title>We're all screwed.</title>
	<author>u64</author>
	<datestamp>1255355100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP sucks, it's been well established in great detail. Though<br>it can be made to work well enough.</p><p>Vista sucks. Vista is NT6.0<br>Windows7 is NT6.1 (still Vista)</p><p>Windows8 dont exist.</p><p>Seems Microsoft is hard at work paving the way for Linux...<br>Microsoft truly drives people toward higher quality<br>safer more secure more economic technlology. sweet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP sucks , it 's been well established in great detail .
Thoughit can be made to work well enough.Vista sucks .
Vista is NT6.0Windows7 is NT6.1 ( still Vista ) Windows8 dont exist.Seems Microsoft is hard at work paving the way for Linux...Microsoft truly drives people toward higher qualitysafer more secure more economic technlology .
sweet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP sucks, it's been well established in great detail.
Thoughit can be made to work well enough.Vista sucks.
Vista is NT6.0Windows7 is NT6.1 (still Vista)Windows8 dont exist.Seems Microsoft is hard at work paving the way for Linux...Microsoft truly drives people toward higher qualitysafer more secure more economic technlology.
sweet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720943</id>
	<title>Windows 7 UAC Still Severely Flawed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255372080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many reviewers are probably making the same mistakes and oversights with Windows 7 that they did with Vista.</p><p>Any reviewer who is not pointing out how severely flawed UAC is in Win 7 is not thinking clearly and/or not doing their job properly. I've been putting Win 7 through it's paces and I can't help but marvel that Microsoft still thinks that it is okay (during the initial install) to have the user setup a single administrator account. Once logged in on this account, whenever UAC needs privilege elevation, it simply presents a dialog with "Yes" and "No" buttons. No password entry is required. Why is this a problem? Think of the millions of users who will setup their PCs this way and then let friends and family use them? Should the trojan that your 15 year old's best friend just downloaded to the family PC get its privileges elevated? Sure, no problem, because all Billy has to do is click "Yes" when he's using your computer- he doesn't need to talk to you or know your password before proceeding. I searched and can find no option to require password entry for UAC privilege approval/escalation on admin accounts in Win 7. The fix, is to create "Regular User" accounts, log out of the administrator account and then use those. But, seriously, how many people are actually going to do this? And, how hard would it have been for Microsoft to write the OS install wizard to set things up this way? It's almost amazing how poorly designed things can be coming from that company. It's almost like they strive for mediocrity.</p><p>Oh, and while I'm thinking about it. Win 7, while better in initial performance than Vista, will eventually suck as bad as any version of Windows. Why? Because the global registry is still there and still subject all of its flaws and rot problems. Programs are still too entwined with the OS and able to update, change, or corrupt it. And, because too many processes run as "Administrator". The viruses, worms, trojans, adware, etc. will not be stopped and your system will still spend a considerable portion of its CPU scanning for that shit in the background. And, there will be millions of users who neglect to have any, or at least any that's up-to-date, anti-malware detection.</p><p>

Windows 7, slightly better out of the gate, but still arriving at the same destination due to poor design decisions in its underpinnings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many reviewers are probably making the same mistakes and oversights with Windows 7 that they did with Vista.Any reviewer who is not pointing out how severely flawed UAC is in Win 7 is not thinking clearly and/or not doing their job properly .
I 've been putting Win 7 through it 's paces and I ca n't help but marvel that Microsoft still thinks that it is okay ( during the initial install ) to have the user setup a single administrator account .
Once logged in on this account , whenever UAC needs privilege elevation , it simply presents a dialog with " Yes " and " No " buttons .
No password entry is required .
Why is this a problem ?
Think of the millions of users who will setup their PCs this way and then let friends and family use them ?
Should the trojan that your 15 year old 's best friend just downloaded to the family PC get its privileges elevated ?
Sure , no problem , because all Billy has to do is click " Yes " when he 's using your computer- he does n't need to talk to you or know your password before proceeding .
I searched and can find no option to require password entry for UAC privilege approval/escalation on admin accounts in Win 7 .
The fix , is to create " Regular User " accounts , log out of the administrator account and then use those .
But , seriously , how many people are actually going to do this ?
And , how hard would it have been for Microsoft to write the OS install wizard to set things up this way ?
It 's almost amazing how poorly designed things can be coming from that company .
It 's almost like they strive for mediocrity.Oh , and while I 'm thinking about it .
Win 7 , while better in initial performance than Vista , will eventually suck as bad as any version of Windows .
Why ? Because the global registry is still there and still subject all of its flaws and rot problems .
Programs are still too entwined with the OS and able to update , change , or corrupt it .
And , because too many processes run as " Administrator " .
The viruses , worms , trojans , adware , etc .
will not be stopped and your system will still spend a considerable portion of its CPU scanning for that shit in the background .
And , there will be millions of users who neglect to have any , or at least any that 's up-to-date , anti-malware detection .
Windows 7 , slightly better out of the gate , but still arriving at the same destination due to poor design decisions in its underpinnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many reviewers are probably making the same mistakes and oversights with Windows 7 that they did with Vista.Any reviewer who is not pointing out how severely flawed UAC is in Win 7 is not thinking clearly and/or not doing their job properly.
I've been putting Win 7 through it's paces and I can't help but marvel that Microsoft still thinks that it is okay (during the initial install) to have the user setup a single administrator account.
Once logged in on this account, whenever UAC needs privilege elevation, it simply presents a dialog with "Yes" and "No" buttons.
No password entry is required.
Why is this a problem?
Think of the millions of users who will setup their PCs this way and then let friends and family use them?
Should the trojan that your 15 year old's best friend just downloaded to the family PC get its privileges elevated?
Sure, no problem, because all Billy has to do is click "Yes" when he's using your computer- he doesn't need to talk to you or know your password before proceeding.
I searched and can find no option to require password entry for UAC privilege approval/escalation on admin accounts in Win 7.
The fix, is to create "Regular User" accounts, log out of the administrator account and then use those.
But, seriously, how many people are actually going to do this?
And, how hard would it have been for Microsoft to write the OS install wizard to set things up this way?
It's almost amazing how poorly designed things can be coming from that company.
It's almost like they strive for mediocrity.Oh, and while I'm thinking about it.
Win 7, while better in initial performance than Vista, will eventually suck as bad as any version of Windows.
Why? Because the global registry is still there and still subject all of its flaws and rot problems.
Programs are still too entwined with the OS and able to update, change, or corrupt it.
And, because too many processes run as "Administrator".
The viruses, worms, trojans, adware, etc.
will not be stopped and your system will still spend a considerable portion of its CPU scanning for that shit in the background.
And, there will be millions of users who neglect to have any, or at least any that's up-to-date, anti-malware detection.
Windows 7, slightly better out of the gate, but still arriving at the same destination due to poor design decisions in its underpinnings.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722377</id>
	<title>Re:OS Change</title>
	<author>BenFenner</author>
	<datestamp>1255377120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>* Change Ubuntu Linux's resolution to 640x480.<br>
Now change it back without using secret,<br>
hidden key commands. It can't be done.<br>
That's a non-user-friendly design.</p></div><p>Oh! Oh! Can I play too?<br>
<br>
Install Office 2007 on a machine running 800 x 600 or less, then go to the "Options" menu screen and try to find the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* Change Ubuntu Linux 's resolution to 640x480 .
Now change it back without using secret , hidden key commands .
It ca n't be done .
That 's a non-user-friendly design.Oh !
Oh ! Can I play too ?
Install Office 2007 on a machine running 800 x 600 or less , then go to the " Options " menu screen and try to find the " OK " and " Cancel " buttons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>* Change Ubuntu Linux's resolution to 640x480.
Now change it back without using secret,
hidden key commands.
It can't be done.
That's a non-user-friendly design.Oh!
Oh! Can I play too?
Install Office 2007 on a machine running 800 x 600 or less, then go to the "Options" menu screen and try to find the "OK" and "Cancel" buttons.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29728461
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719753
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29726677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720707
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720349
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720327
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719957
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29727953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29733303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723195
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719303
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29730521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29724535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29755715
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719579
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29730045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722305
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29728287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29726309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719373
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720151
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721553
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720565
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_12_1429214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29732917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720877
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29728461
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29724535
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29732917
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720635
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29727953
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29730045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719717
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719957
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719533
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722631
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722735
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721513
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719623
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722377
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720903
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29726677
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719373
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720151
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719461
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719753
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720233
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29755715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29721553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719843
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719471
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719343
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29728287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720453
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722665
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720707
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29730521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29733303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719209
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719303
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29719621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29723195
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720123
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29722245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29726309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_12_1429214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29720327
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_12_1429214.29725293
</commentlist>
</conversation>
