<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_21_1234214</id>
	<title>Windows 7 On Multicore &mdash; How Much Faster?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256132400000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.infoworld.com/" rel="nofollow">snydeq</a> writes <i>"InfoWorld's Andrew Binstock tests whether <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-7-multicore-how-much-faster-325">Windows 7's threading advances fulfill the promise of improved performance and energy reduction</a>. He runs Windows XP Professional, Vista Ultimate, and Windows 7 Ultimate against Viewperf and Cinebench benchmarks using a Dell Precision T3500 workstation, the price-performance winner of an earlier <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/hardware/nehalem-workstations-new-era-in-performance-600">roundup of Nehalem-based workstations</a>. 'What might be surprising is that Windows 7's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch,' Binstock writes of the benchmarks, adding that the principal changes to Windows 7 multithreading consist of increased processor affinity, 'a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/how-intel-nehalem-processors-and-windows-7-work-together-335">pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources</a>,' permitting Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty, but delivering little performance gains for systems with only a few processors. 'Windows 7 performs several tricks to keep threads running on the same execution pipelines so that the underlying Nehalem processor can turn off transistors on lesser-used or inactive pipelines,' Binstock writes. 'The primary benefit of this feature is reduced energy consumption,' with Windows 7 requiring 17 percent less power to run than Windows XP or Vista."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>snydeq writes " InfoWorld 's Andrew Binstock tests whether Windows 7 's threading advances fulfill the promise of improved performance and energy reduction .
He runs Windows XP Professional , Vista Ultimate , and Windows 7 Ultimate against Viewperf and Cinebench benchmarks using a Dell Precision T3500 workstation , the price-performance winner of an earlier roundup of Nehalem-based workstations .
'What might be surprising is that Windows 7 's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch, ' Binstock writes of the benchmarks , adding that the principal changes to Windows 7 multithreading consist of increased processor affinity , 'a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources, ' permitting Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty , but delivering little performance gains for systems with only a few processors .
'Windows 7 performs several tricks to keep threads running on the same execution pipelines so that the underlying Nehalem processor can turn off transistors on lesser-used or inactive pipelines, ' Binstock writes .
'The primary benefit of this feature is reduced energy consumption, ' with Windows 7 requiring 17 percent less power to run than Windows XP or Vista .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Andrew Binstock tests whether Windows 7's threading advances fulfill the promise of improved performance and energy reduction.
He runs Windows XP Professional, Vista Ultimate, and Windows 7 Ultimate against Viewperf and Cinebench benchmarks using a Dell Precision T3500 workstation, the price-performance winner of an earlier roundup of Nehalem-based workstations.
'What might be surprising is that Windows 7's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch,' Binstock writes of the benchmarks, adding that the principal changes to Windows 7 multithreading consist of increased processor affinity, 'a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources,' permitting Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty, but delivering little performance gains for systems with only a few processors.
'Windows 7 performs several tricks to keep threads running on the same execution pipelines so that the underlying Nehalem processor can turn off transistors on lesser-used or inactive pipelines,' Binstock writes.
'The primary benefit of this feature is reduced energy consumption,' with Windows 7 requiring 17 percent less power to run than Windows XP or Vista.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824383</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't it..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256144580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jigawatts.    Isn't it 1.21 JW?</p><p>If we can shove that into a Windows 7 notebook and everything goes right, MSDOS will be covered over by a truck load of manure in 1982.  Ubuntu will be the corp standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jigawatts .
Is n't it 1.21 JW ? If we can shove that into a Windows 7 notebook and everything goes right , MSDOS will be covered over by a truck load of manure in 1982 .
Ubuntu will be the corp standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jigawatts.
Isn't it 1.21 JW?If we can shove that into a Windows 7 notebook and everything goes right, MSDOS will be covered over by a truck load of manure in 1982.
Ubuntu will be the corp standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825111</id>
	<title>Re:Not all code can be done in parallel</title>
	<author>ScaledLizard</author>
	<datestamp>1256147880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are many different possibilities of creating parallel code, which also differ in terms of difficulty. It is often easy to parallelize tasks on a computer as different processes, if the amount of inter-process communication isn't too big. Otherwise, take a look at threads, mutexes and transactions to get startet on parallel programming. There isn't a best strategy yet for all cases, and perhaps a single best strategy for parallel programming doesn't exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many different possibilities of creating parallel code , which also differ in terms of difficulty .
It is often easy to parallelize tasks on a computer as different processes , if the amount of inter-process communication is n't too big .
Otherwise , take a look at threads , mutexes and transactions to get startet on parallel programming .
There is n't a best strategy yet for all cases , and perhaps a single best strategy for parallel programming does n't exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many different possibilities of creating parallel code, which also differ in terms of difficulty.
It is often easy to parallelize tasks on a computer as different processes, if the amount of inter-process communication isn't too big.
Otherwise, take a look at threads, mutexes and transactions to get startet on parallel programming.
There isn't a best strategy yet for all cases, and perhaps a single best strategy for parallel programming doesn't exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829625</id>
	<title>Re:Not Really</title>
	<author>Johnno74</author>
	<datestamp>1256124240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Should have implemented <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand\_Central\_Dispatch" title="wikipedia.org">Grand Central</a> [wikipedia.org], I hear it's free and opensource. Even has the Apache license so that it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software.</p><p>I mean they already borrowed the <a href="http://www.gcn.com/Blogs/Tech-Blog/2006/12/Windows-Vista-network-stack-not-so-new.aspx" title="gcn.com">TCP IP stack.</a> [gcn.com] </p></div><p>You are missing the point.<br>While Grand Central is a very cool system, its not designed to make multithreaded applications faster.  Its designed to make it easier to write a multi-threaded app, or retrofit multi-threading into existing single-threaded code.</p><p>And that link you provided is interesting, but nowhere does it say anyone but microsoft wrote the TCP stack.  All it says is it uses several existing TCP algorithms.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should have implemented Grand Central [ wikipedia.org ] , I hear it 's free and opensource .
Even has the Apache license so that it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software.I mean they already borrowed the TCP IP stack .
[ gcn.com ] You are missing the point.While Grand Central is a very cool system , its not designed to make multithreaded applications faster .
Its designed to make it easier to write a multi-threaded app , or retrofit multi-threading into existing single-threaded code.And that link you provided is interesting , but nowhere does it say anyone but microsoft wrote the TCP stack .
All it says is it uses several existing TCP algorithms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should have implemented Grand Central [wikipedia.org], I hear it's free and opensource.
Even has the Apache license so that it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software.I mean they already borrowed the TCP IP stack.
[gcn.com] You are missing the point.While Grand Central is a very cool system, its not designed to make multithreaded applications faster.
Its designed to make it easier to write a multi-threaded app, or retrofit multi-threading into existing single-threaded code.And that link you provided is interesting, but nowhere does it say anyone but microsoft wrote the TCP stack.
All it says is it uses several existing TCP algorithms.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823647</id>
	<title>Re:Windows kernel still had global locks then? Wow</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1256141040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mac users can't use a Windows desktop too easily if they haven't been previously exposed.
</p><p>
Windows users have issues with OSX.
</p><p>
The use of Windows is learned, like anything else.  Most normal people can't use Windows worth a damn either, they can click the blue E and then complain their computer got slow and they don't know how to install a printer....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac users ca n't use a Windows desktop too easily if they have n't been previously exposed .
Windows users have issues with OSX .
The use of Windows is learned , like anything else .
Most normal people ca n't use Windows worth a damn either , they can click the blue E and then complain their computer got slow and they do n't know how to install a printer... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac users can't use a Windows desktop too easily if they haven't been previously exposed.
Windows users have issues with OSX.
The use of Windows is learned, like anything else.
Most normal people can't use Windows worth a damn either, they can click the blue E and then complain their computer got slow and they don't know how to install a printer....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823281</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587</id>
	<title>Re:Not all code can be done in parallel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256145600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"What the new languages and OS's are doing, are just making it easier for developers to make code that runs on parallel processors. However most of us are not trained to write parallel code."</p></div></blockquote><p>Well you bloody well should be, it's basic stuff.</p><p>Parallelism has been around for over 20 years now, not to mention the related discipline of distributed computing. It's not new. It's not *that* hard. You don't need to parallelise every last goddamn algorithm if you can split the work up into jobs using thread pools, or into similar tasks.</p><p>You think the people that make apache analyse every string comparison they do to see if they could do it more efficiently across a set of vector cores? Well maybe, but most likely they use task parallelism to get multiple threads executing different but comparatively large chunks of code.</p><p>This is not a distraction from software development, it's doing it well. And if you're afraid of a little bit of memory allocation then you're doing it wrong...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" What the new languages and OS 's are doing , are just making it easier for developers to make code that runs on parallel processors .
However most of us are not trained to write parallel code .
" Well you bloody well should be , it 's basic stuff.Parallelism has been around for over 20 years now , not to mention the related discipline of distributed computing .
It 's not new .
It 's not * that * hard .
You do n't need to parallelise every last goddamn algorithm if you can split the work up into jobs using thread pools , or into similar tasks.You think the people that make apache analyse every string comparison they do to see if they could do it more efficiently across a set of vector cores ?
Well maybe , but most likely they use task parallelism to get multiple threads executing different but comparatively large chunks of code.This is not a distraction from software development , it 's doing it well .
And if you 're afraid of a little bit of memory allocation then you 're doing it wrong.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What the new languages and OS's are doing, are just making it easier for developers to make code that runs on parallel processors.
However most of us are not trained to write parallel code.
"Well you bloody well should be, it's basic stuff.Parallelism has been around for over 20 years now, not to mention the related discipline of distributed computing.
It's not new.
It's not *that* hard.
You don't need to parallelise every last goddamn algorithm if you can split the work up into jobs using thread pools, or into similar tasks.You think the people that make apache analyse every string comparison they do to see if they could do it more efficiently across a set of vector cores?
Well maybe, but most likely they use task parallelism to get multiple threads executing different but comparatively large chunks of code.This is not a distraction from software development, it's doing it well.
And if you're afraid of a little bit of memory allocation then you're doing it wrong...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826019</id>
	<title>Windows XP *PROFESSIONAL* &amp; Vista *ULTIMATE*</title>
	<author>RudeIota</author>
	<datestamp>1256151420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They didn't use XP and Vista Home editions in <a href="http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-7-multicore-how-much-faster-325" title="infoworld.com">this test</a> [infoworld.com]. It was XP Professional and Vista Ultimate.<p><div class="quote"><p>"<b>For this review, we used</b> three identical hard drives, each preloaded by Dell with the latest versions of <b>Windows XP Professional, Vista Ultimate</b>, and Windows 7 Ultimate -- all 32-bit -- with the latest drivers the company makes available."</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't use XP and Vista Home editions in this test [ infoworld.com ] .
It was XP Professional and Vista Ultimate .
" For this review , we used three identical hard drives , each preloaded by Dell with the latest versions of Windows XP Professional , Vista Ultimate , and Windows 7 Ultimate -- all 32-bit -- with the latest drivers the company makes available .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't use XP and Vista Home editions in this test [infoworld.com].
It was XP Professional and Vista Ultimate.
"For this review, we used three identical hard drives, each preloaded by Dell with the latest versions of Windows XP Professional, Vista Ultimate, and Windows 7 Ultimate -- all 32-bit -- with the latest drivers the company makes available.
" 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29833585</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256214900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is better to be a desktop trying to be a server than the other way around</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is better to be a desktop trying to be a server than the other way around</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is better to be a desktop trying to be a server than the other way around</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823505</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correctamundo!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correctamundo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correctamundo!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832157</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>spongman</author>
	<datestamp>1256150280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>compiler? yes.</p><blockquote><div><p>&gt;c:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\csc.exe<br>Microsoft (R) Visual C# 2008 Compiler version 3.5.30729.4918<br>for Microsoft (R)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework version 3.5<br>Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.</p><p>fatal error CS2008: No inputs specified</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>compiler ?
yes. &gt; c : \ Windows \ Microsoft.NET \ Framework \ v3.5 \ csc.exeMicrosoft ( R ) Visual C # 2008 Compiler version 3.5.30729.4918for Microsoft ( R ) .NET Framework version 3.5Copyright ( C ) Microsoft Corporation .
All rights reserved.fatal error CS2008 : No inputs specified</tokentext>
<sentencetext>compiler?
yes.&gt;c:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\csc.exeMicrosoft (R) Visual C# 2008 Compiler version 3.5.30729.4918for Microsoft (R) .NET Framework version 3.5Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.fatal error CS2008: No inputs specified
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822733</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>heheh Nice troll here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>heheh Nice troll here : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heheh Nice troll here :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897</id>
	<title>Not all code can be done in parallel</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256137320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the new languages and OS's are doing, are just making it easier for developers to make code that runs on parallel processors. However most of us are not trained to write parallel code. And there are some algorithms that cannot be parallelized.  What the moderns OS are doing is taking code that was designed to run multi-threaded or parallel in the first place and in essence have them run more efficient on multi-processors. As well as giving you some tools to make development easier and stop us from trying to work around all those conflicts that distracts us from software development.  Much like how String classes came common for developers so we didn't need to fuss around with allocations just to do some basic string manipulation... (Alocate space, calculate the memory offset insure the last character was a 0x00...) aka making development really easy for buffer overflow errors if you missed a step.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the new languages and OS 's are doing , are just making it easier for developers to make code that runs on parallel processors .
However most of us are not trained to write parallel code .
And there are some algorithms that can not be parallelized .
What the moderns OS are doing is taking code that was designed to run multi-threaded or parallel in the first place and in essence have them run more efficient on multi-processors .
As well as giving you some tools to make development easier and stop us from trying to work around all those conflicts that distracts us from software development .
Much like how String classes came common for developers so we did n't need to fuss around with allocations just to do some basic string manipulation... ( Alocate space , calculate the memory offset insure the last character was a 0x00... ) aka making development really easy for buffer overflow errors if you missed a step .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the new languages and OS's are doing, are just making it easier for developers to make code that runs on parallel processors.
However most of us are not trained to write parallel code.
And there are some algorithms that cannot be parallelized.
What the moderns OS are doing is taking code that was designed to run multi-threaded or parallel in the first place and in essence have them run more efficient on multi-processors.
As well as giving you some tools to make development easier and stop us from trying to work around all those conflicts that distracts us from software development.
Much like how String classes came common for developers so we didn't need to fuss around with allocations just to do some basic string manipulation... (Alocate space, calculate the memory offset insure the last character was a 0x00...) aka making development really easy for buffer overflow errors if you missed a step.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823711</id>
	<title>Its the scheduler stupid.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256141340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Snow Leopard walks all over Windows 7 for usage of multi-core.  Simply allowing more threads assigned to cores is pretty meaningless without a decent scheduler and Windows deskto and server OS' have a shit scheduler.  Which is why after all these years, Micrsoft server OS still pale to Unix in use of multiple procs.  Plus Micrsofts development techniques for multi-core put all of the onus on the  developer and their app instead of building it into their OS.  there is a reason BSD and others are adopting Apples Grand Central.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Snow Leopard walks all over Windows 7 for usage of multi-core .
Simply allowing more threads assigned to cores is pretty meaningless without a decent scheduler and Windows deskto and server OS ' have a shit scheduler .
Which is why after all these years , Micrsoft server OS still pale to Unix in use of multiple procs .
Plus Micrsofts development techniques for multi-core put all of the onus on the developer and their app instead of building it into their OS .
there is a reason BSD and others are adopting Apples Grand Central .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Snow Leopard walks all over Windows 7 for usage of multi-core.
Simply allowing more threads assigned to cores is pretty meaningless without a decent scheduler and Windows deskto and server OS' have a shit scheduler.
Which is why after all these years, Micrsoft server OS still pale to Unix in use of multiple procs.
Plus Micrsofts development techniques for multi-core put all of the onus on the  developer and their app instead of building it into their OS.
there is a reason BSD and others are adopting Apples Grand Central.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427</id>
	<title>Harldy a surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"What might be surprising is that Windows 7's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch"</i></p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Umm, it may be surprising to any alien who is just visiting our planet, however for people who have bought Microsoft software in the past, this is the norm. Every OS successor ever written by Microsoft (except perhaps MS-DOS 5.0) has 1) required faster hardware, greater memory and has delivered 2) The same or inferior performance. It's not all \_bad\_, Microsoft does tend to add some bells and whistles. However these are hard to justify (eg: why the FUCK does my Microsoft Keyboard driver consist of 80 MEGABYTES?) - especially when now most of those bells and whistles involve "protecting" the user (and especially Hollywood) from "pirated software"... or trying to dance around huge holes in the OS' security by spamming the user every 5 mins so that their legal team can turn around and say "if your machine got infected, it had to be YOUR fault".</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; No, if you want to see REAL performance improvements, I suggest linux.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; This post will be modded down by Microsoft shills in 5, 4, 3...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What might be surprising is that Windows 7 's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch "       Umm , it may be surprising to any alien who is just visiting our planet , however for people who have bought Microsoft software in the past , this is the norm .
Every OS successor ever written by Microsoft ( except perhaps MS-DOS 5.0 ) has 1 ) required faster hardware , greater memory and has delivered 2 ) The same or inferior performance .
It 's not all \ _bad \ _ , Microsoft does tend to add some bells and whistles .
However these are hard to justify ( eg : why the FUCK does my Microsoft Keyboard driver consist of 80 MEGABYTES ?
) - especially when now most of those bells and whistles involve " protecting " the user ( and especially Hollywood ) from " pirated software " ... or trying to dance around huge holes in the OS ' security by spamming the user every 5 mins so that their legal team can turn around and say " if your machine got infected , it had to be YOUR fault " .
      No , if you want to see REAL performance improvements , I suggest linux .
      This post will be modded down by Microsoft shills in 5 , 4 , 3.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What might be surprising is that Windows 7's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch"
      Umm, it may be surprising to any alien who is just visiting our planet, however for people who have bought Microsoft software in the past, this is the norm.
Every OS successor ever written by Microsoft (except perhaps MS-DOS 5.0) has 1) required faster hardware, greater memory and has delivered 2) The same or inferior performance.
It's not all \_bad\_, Microsoft does tend to add some bells and whistles.
However these are hard to justify (eg: why the FUCK does my Microsoft Keyboard driver consist of 80 MEGABYTES?
) - especially when now most of those bells and whistles involve "protecting" the user (and especially Hollywood) from "pirated software"... or trying to dance around huge holes in the OS' security by spamming the user every 5 mins so that their legal team can turn around and say "if your machine got infected, it had to be YOUR fault".
      No, if you want to see REAL performance improvements, I suggest linux.
      This post will be modded down by Microsoft shills in 5, 4, 3...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831107</id>
	<title>Re:Not all code can be done in parallel</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1256136300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Well you bloody well should be, it's basic stuff.</i></p><p>1. It's "basic stuff" most people get wrong. Sorry but if you think it's easy YOU are probably not doing it right.</p><p>2. Not every library, existing code base and environment is thread safe</p><p>3. There are entire classes of problems that can't be parallelised</p><p>You're probably taking some very narrow experience and extrapolating to well everything. Sometimes it's not just a lazy programmer that means it's doesn't get done.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well you bloody well should be , it 's basic stuff.1 .
It 's " basic stuff " most people get wrong .
Sorry but if you think it 's easy YOU are probably not doing it right.2 .
Not every library , existing code base and environment is thread safe3 .
There are entire classes of problems that ca n't be parallelisedYou 're probably taking some very narrow experience and extrapolating to well everything .
Sometimes it 's not just a lazy programmer that means it 's does n't get done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well you bloody well should be, it's basic stuff.1.
It's "basic stuff" most people get wrong.
Sorry but if you think it's easy YOU are probably not doing it right.2.
Not every library, existing code base and environment is thread safe3.
There are entire classes of problems that can't be parallelisedYou're probably taking some very narrow experience and extrapolating to well everything.
Sometimes it's not just a lazy programmer that means it's doesn't get done.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But how does it compare to XP X64? I have been running XP X64 for nearly a year now, which is of course the excellent Win2K3 server with an XP shell, and frankly it has been just awesome for multithreaded apps. Everything is smooth as butter, only is using 458Mb of my 8Gb leaving the rest for stuff I WANT, and doesn't fricking phone home all the damned time like Vista does. Does anybody with experience with it know how much Windows 7 calls home? Because Vista was constantly pinging my firewall and irritating the hell out of me.</p><p>

So while I picked up a copy of Win7 HP to play with and learn how to work on it, unless some "killer app" comes out for it I think I'll be sticking with XP X64 for quite awhile yet. It really is a damned good business OS and doesn't bug the living crap out of me like Vista did. BTW did they solve the "senior moments" in Vista? You know, where it would freeze for 3-12 seconds, just long enough to bug the shit out of you? Or the problem where the network would slow to a crawl if you watched vids or listened to tunes while transferring files? Those both drove me up a fricking wall with that OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But how does it compare to XP X64 ?
I have been running XP X64 for nearly a year now , which is of course the excellent Win2K3 server with an XP shell , and frankly it has been just awesome for multithreaded apps .
Everything is smooth as butter , only is using 458Mb of my 8Gb leaving the rest for stuff I WANT , and does n't fricking phone home all the damned time like Vista does .
Does anybody with experience with it know how much Windows 7 calls home ?
Because Vista was constantly pinging my firewall and irritating the hell out of me .
So while I picked up a copy of Win7 HP to play with and learn how to work on it , unless some " killer app " comes out for it I think I 'll be sticking with XP X64 for quite awhile yet .
It really is a damned good business OS and does n't bug the living crap out of me like Vista did .
BTW did they solve the " senior moments " in Vista ?
You know , where it would freeze for 3-12 seconds , just long enough to bug the shit out of you ?
Or the problem where the network would slow to a crawl if you watched vids or listened to tunes while transferring files ?
Those both drove me up a fricking wall with that OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But how does it compare to XP X64?
I have been running XP X64 for nearly a year now, which is of course the excellent Win2K3 server with an XP shell, and frankly it has been just awesome for multithreaded apps.
Everything is smooth as butter, only is using 458Mb of my 8Gb leaving the rest for stuff I WANT, and doesn't fricking phone home all the damned time like Vista does.
Does anybody with experience with it know how much Windows 7 calls home?
Because Vista was constantly pinging my firewall and irritating the hell out of me.
So while I picked up a copy of Win7 HP to play with and learn how to work on it, unless some "killer app" comes out for it I think I'll be sticking with XP X64 for quite awhile yet.
It really is a damned good business OS and doesn't bug the living crap out of me like Vista did.
BTW did they solve the "senior moments" in Vista?
You know, where it would freeze for 3-12 seconds, just long enough to bug the shit out of you?
Or the problem where the network would slow to a crawl if you watched vids or listened to tunes while transferring files?
Those both drove me up a fricking wall with that OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29874805</id>
	<title>Re:Harldy a surprise</title>
	<author>Bengie</author>
	<datestamp>1256583360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obviously there are many different ideas of "performance"</p><p>Keyboard drivers. I've had many different keyboards and they all seem to use the same default MS drivers, they all work within seconds of plugging into my USB and ALL the features/extra  buttons seem to work. My guess is that Ms has a large generic driver that compatible with a lot of different setups and enabled/disables features as detected.</p><p>OS getting slower/etc. Seems to me that Vista had fewer 'pauses' when working with the UI than XP. This helps with perceived performance. Glad I only got Vista once SP1 came out, I hear Pre-SP1 sucked.</p><p>Using more RAM. Vista/7 will use any free memory, up to 20\% free, to cache data to help speed up performance. Vista/7 will dynamically unallocate cache if you get lower than 20\% free memory. When I look at my memory usage I see 2.5GB used. 20 tabs of Chrome, Visual Studio open, WoW eating 1.5GB ram, bunch of desktop gadgets, and I still have 1.5GB of my 4GB free.</p><p>Pure CPU "performance" via number crunching. I have a Corei7 920(2.66ghz). I run a few distrubuted number crunches to help cure the world. The theoretical MAX for an i7 is 2 flops per cycle but since a program can only issue one OP at a time, these two Floating point instructions must be issued via hyper-threading, otherwise you're limited to 1 FLOP per cycle. Guess how many FLOPs I'm getting per logical CPU.... 2.66 billion FLOPs average. That means I'm getting EXACTLY the theoretical max. I have a few SSE crunchers and they are a TON faster than even that. Same benchmark claims over 7billion ints/sec per logical CPU, but I'm guessing that's MMX? Either way, 14billion ints/sec per physical core is crazy fast. Since actual number crunching is not limited by the OS in anyway, not even -1\%, the only "low" performance must be in IO functions.</p><p>HD performance. I have some 2GB+ videos I like to manipulate so I sometimes make a copy of on of those files for back-up purposes. Now, I have a $1k dell that I bought at best buy. This is NOT a high end machine. Some crappy 7200 rpm HD. When making copies of these large video files, I average ~75-80MB/sec or under 30seconds for a 2GB file. That's not copying from one HD to another, that copying from one place to another on the SAME HD. I don't know about you, but 80MB/sec reading is fast, but copying... that's crazy. On a similar system with a 7200 rpm drive, I'm getting 30MB/sec in XP. Obviously my new system should be some faster, but almost 3xs faster for a same RPM drive? Both systems are under 5\% kernel cpu time during the copy.</p><p>I'm getting 45-50FPS compressing 1920x1080 with 2pass xvid 1.22 set to the highest quality settings and that's only using 40\% of my cpu</p><p>So in a nutshell, my computer is crunching numbers at it's theoretical limit, it's copying files about the theoretical limit of the HD, I get great FPS in games, Win7 UI is more responsive than previous MS OS's. What's this "low" performance? Do you expect to get greater than the theoretical max? Ma'b you machine is old and you need to buy a $1k Dell like I did.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obviously there are many different ideas of " performance " Keyboard drivers .
I 've had many different keyboards and they all seem to use the same default MS drivers , they all work within seconds of plugging into my USB and ALL the features/extra buttons seem to work .
My guess is that Ms has a large generic driver that compatible with a lot of different setups and enabled/disables features as detected.OS getting slower/etc .
Seems to me that Vista had fewer 'pauses ' when working with the UI than XP .
This helps with perceived performance .
Glad I only got Vista once SP1 came out , I hear Pre-SP1 sucked.Using more RAM .
Vista/7 will use any free memory , up to 20 \ % free , to cache data to help speed up performance .
Vista/7 will dynamically unallocate cache if you get lower than 20 \ % free memory .
When I look at my memory usage I see 2.5GB used .
20 tabs of Chrome , Visual Studio open , WoW eating 1.5GB ram , bunch of desktop gadgets , and I still have 1.5GB of my 4GB free.Pure CPU " performance " via number crunching .
I have a Corei7 920 ( 2.66ghz ) .
I run a few distrubuted number crunches to help cure the world .
The theoretical MAX for an i7 is 2 flops per cycle but since a program can only issue one OP at a time , these two Floating point instructions must be issued via hyper-threading , otherwise you 're limited to 1 FLOP per cycle .
Guess how many FLOPs I 'm getting per logical CPU.... 2.66 billion FLOPs average .
That means I 'm getting EXACTLY the theoretical max .
I have a few SSE crunchers and they are a TON faster than even that .
Same benchmark claims over 7billion ints/sec per logical CPU , but I 'm guessing that 's MMX ?
Either way , 14billion ints/sec per physical core is crazy fast .
Since actual number crunching is not limited by the OS in anyway , not even -1 \ % , the only " low " performance must be in IO functions.HD performance .
I have some 2GB + videos I like to manipulate so I sometimes make a copy of on of those files for back-up purposes .
Now , I have a $ 1k dell that I bought at best buy .
This is NOT a high end machine .
Some crappy 7200 rpm HD .
When making copies of these large video files , I average ~ 75-80MB/sec or under 30seconds for a 2GB file .
That 's not copying from one HD to another , that copying from one place to another on the SAME HD .
I do n't know about you , but 80MB/sec reading is fast , but copying... that 's crazy .
On a similar system with a 7200 rpm drive , I 'm getting 30MB/sec in XP .
Obviously my new system should be some faster , but almost 3xs faster for a same RPM drive ?
Both systems are under 5 \ % kernel cpu time during the copy.I 'm getting 45-50FPS compressing 1920x1080 with 2pass xvid 1.22 set to the highest quality settings and that 's only using 40 \ % of my cpuSo in a nutshell , my computer is crunching numbers at it 's theoretical limit , it 's copying files about the theoretical limit of the HD , I get great FPS in games , Win7 UI is more responsive than previous MS OS 's .
What 's this " low " performance ?
Do you expect to get greater than the theoretical max ?
Ma'b you machine is old and you need to buy a $ 1k Dell like I did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obviously there are many different ideas of "performance"Keyboard drivers.
I've had many different keyboards and they all seem to use the same default MS drivers, they all work within seconds of plugging into my USB and ALL the features/extra  buttons seem to work.
My guess is that Ms has a large generic driver that compatible with a lot of different setups and enabled/disables features as detected.OS getting slower/etc.
Seems to me that Vista had fewer 'pauses' when working with the UI than XP.
This helps with perceived performance.
Glad I only got Vista once SP1 came out, I hear Pre-SP1 sucked.Using more RAM.
Vista/7 will use any free memory, up to 20\% free, to cache data to help speed up performance.
Vista/7 will dynamically unallocate cache if you get lower than 20\% free memory.
When I look at my memory usage I see 2.5GB used.
20 tabs of Chrome, Visual Studio open, WoW eating 1.5GB ram, bunch of desktop gadgets, and I still have 1.5GB of my 4GB free.Pure CPU "performance" via number crunching.
I have a Corei7 920(2.66ghz).
I run a few distrubuted number crunches to help cure the world.
The theoretical MAX for an i7 is 2 flops per cycle but since a program can only issue one OP at a time, these two Floating point instructions must be issued via hyper-threading, otherwise you're limited to 1 FLOP per cycle.
Guess how many FLOPs I'm getting per logical CPU.... 2.66 billion FLOPs average.
That means I'm getting EXACTLY the theoretical max.
I have a few SSE crunchers and they are a TON faster than even that.
Same benchmark claims over 7billion ints/sec per logical CPU, but I'm guessing that's MMX?
Either way, 14billion ints/sec per physical core is crazy fast.
Since actual number crunching is not limited by the OS in anyway, not even -1\%, the only "low" performance must be in IO functions.HD performance.
I have some 2GB+ videos I like to manipulate so I sometimes make a copy of on of those files for back-up purposes.
Now, I have a $1k dell that I bought at best buy.
This is NOT a high end machine.
Some crappy 7200 rpm HD.
When making copies of these large video files, I average ~75-80MB/sec or under 30seconds for a 2GB file.
That's not copying from one HD to another, that copying from one place to another on the SAME HD.
I don't know about you, but 80MB/sec reading is fast, but copying... that's crazy.
On a similar system with a 7200 rpm drive, I'm getting 30MB/sec in XP.
Obviously my new system should be some faster, but almost 3xs faster for a same RPM drive?
Both systems are under 5\% kernel cpu time during the copy.I'm getting 45-50FPS compressing 1920x1080 with 2pass xvid 1.22 set to the highest quality settings and that's only using 40\% of my cpuSo in a nutshell, my computer is crunching numbers at it's theoretical limit, it's copying files about the theoretical limit of the HD, I get great FPS in games, Win7 UI is more responsive than previous MS OS's.
What's this "low" performance?
Do you expect to get greater than the theoretical max?
Ma'b you machine is old and you need to buy a $1k Dell like I did.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823539</id>
	<title>Re:Windows version - 7 *ULTIMATE*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only difference if you look is the added features.  Such as home does not have the corporate networking features.  The base kernel and OS is the same so performance will be identical or even better since the lower ones do not have to manage additional features.  Although Ultimate might handle it better since it can toss more things over unto other cores versus home which might hit a point where it has already finished spreading out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference if you look is the added features .
Such as home does not have the corporate networking features .
The base kernel and OS is the same so performance will be identical or even better since the lower ones do not have to manage additional features .
Although Ultimate might handle it better since it can toss more things over unto other cores versus home which might hit a point where it has already finished spreading out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference if you look is the added features.
Such as home does not have the corporate networking features.
The base kernel and OS is the same so performance will be identical or even better since the lower ones do not have to manage additional features.
Although Ultimate might handle it better since it can toss more things over unto other cores versus home which might hit a point where it has already finished spreading out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823125</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256138460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I actually have a system using that same motherboard.  The BIOS on this board does have a tendency to run the CPU fan at full speed after rebooting.  Even when it does work, it does not do a very good job at adjusting fan speeds based on the CPU temperature.
<br> <br>
In my experience it is best not to rely on the BIOS control on these boards and instead use a software solution to adjust the fan speeds.
<br> <br>
Under Windows you can use the Abit uGuru software to automatically adjust fan speeds based on temperature thresholds you specify which works quite well (at least under XP and Vista, haven't tested it on Windows 7 yet.)  You can also use SpeedFan, but I prefer the Abit utility since it appears to react to temperature changes a bit faster.
<br> <br>
I haven't run Linux on this board but you may be able to find a Linux application that is also capable of adjusting fan speeds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually have a system using that same motherboard .
The BIOS on this board does have a tendency to run the CPU fan at full speed after rebooting .
Even when it does work , it does not do a very good job at adjusting fan speeds based on the CPU temperature .
In my experience it is best not to rely on the BIOS control on these boards and instead use a software solution to adjust the fan speeds .
Under Windows you can use the Abit uGuru software to automatically adjust fan speeds based on temperature thresholds you specify which works quite well ( at least under XP and Vista , have n't tested it on Windows 7 yet .
) You can also use SpeedFan , but I prefer the Abit utility since it appears to react to temperature changes a bit faster .
I have n't run Linux on this board but you may be able to find a Linux application that is also capable of adjusting fan speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually have a system using that same motherboard.
The BIOS on this board does have a tendency to run the CPU fan at full speed after rebooting.
Even when it does work, it does not do a very good job at adjusting fan speeds based on the CPU temperature.
In my experience it is best not to rely on the BIOS control on these boards and instead use a software solution to adjust the fan speeds.
Under Windows you can use the Abit uGuru software to automatically adjust fan speeds based on temperature thresholds you specify which works quite well (at least under XP and Vista, haven't tested it on Windows 7 yet.
)  You can also use SpeedFan, but I prefer the Abit utility since it appears to react to temperature changes a bit faster.
I haven't run Linux on this board but you may be able to find a Linux application that is also capable of adjusting fan speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826265</id>
	<title>Re:Harldy a surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Every OS successor ever written by Microsoft (except perhaps MS-DOS 5.0) has 1) required faster hardware, greater memory and has delivered 2) The same or inferior performance. It's not all \_bad\_, Microsoft does tend to add some bells and whistles.</p></div><p>Not true... while I would believe this for the XP to Vista transition, Windows 7's requirements are no higher than Vista's... if anything they're slightly lower.  Also you've made the mistake that many people have made... that is, that memory usage is a bad thing.  Any modern OS would have terrible performance as a multi-purpose desktop/laptop OS if it wasn't using a lot of memory for caching, buffering, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every OS successor ever written by Microsoft ( except perhaps MS-DOS 5.0 ) has 1 ) required faster hardware , greater memory and has delivered 2 ) The same or inferior performance .
It 's not all \ _bad \ _ , Microsoft does tend to add some bells and whistles.Not true... while I would believe this for the XP to Vista transition , Windows 7 's requirements are no higher than Vista 's... if anything they 're slightly lower .
Also you 've made the mistake that many people have made... that is , that memory usage is a bad thing .
Any modern OS would have terrible performance as a multi-purpose desktop/laptop OS if it was n't using a lot of memory for caching , buffering , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every OS successor ever written by Microsoft (except perhaps MS-DOS 5.0) has 1) required faster hardware, greater memory and has delivered 2) The same or inferior performance.
It's not all \_bad\_, Microsoft does tend to add some bells and whistles.Not true... while I would believe this for the XP to Vista transition, Windows 7's requirements are no higher than Vista's... if anything they're slightly lower.
Also you've made the mistake that many people have made... that is, that memory usage is a bad thing.
Any modern OS would have terrible performance as a multi-purpose desktop/laptop OS if it wasn't using a lot of memory for caching, buffering, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822985</id>
	<title>too much is never enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256137620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that must be why<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. now includes censorship, &amp; does so much advertising for the felonious kingdumb of gottiesque softwar gangsters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that must be why / .
now includes censorship , &amp; does so much advertising for the felonious kingdumb of gottiesque softwar gangsters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that must be why /.
now includes censorship, &amp; does so much advertising for the felonious kingdumb of gottiesque softwar gangsters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827521</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>hairyfeet</author>
	<datestamp>1256157660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually i bought XP x64 because I like to game, and frankly I don't know where you got your info from but it has worked great for me. I built my own PC (AMD 7550,8Gb PC6400, 2 500Gb HDD, 4650 1Gb GPU) and haven't had a bit of trouble. I simply made sure the motherboard supported XP X64 before I got it and all was good. The only game I ran into any trouble with was King's Bounty the Legend, but it was the No-DVD I was using, I ran the disc and all worked fine.</p><p>The problem you are gonna find with ANY MSFT X64 is this-you HAVE TO crack every. single. one. of your games. Why? Because while even the older games have worked beautifully for me, their ^\%$^\%$# DRM doesn't work in x64! You get that stupid "Insert disc in drive" bullshit, when of course your disc IS in the fricking drive, so you have to go and keep cracks for all your games. Oh, and watch out for the Starforce games, as you DO NOT want to have the "fun" of trying to remove that festering turd from x64, because while they SAY they have an uninstaller, guess what? It don't work on x64 either! So you get to spend the day dual booting and hacking the reg to kill that crap.</p><p>

So while I'm glad Windows 7 x64 is working for you, my experience with Vista has made me leery. It called home constantly, it had "senior moments" where it froze for 3-15 seconds, not enough to troubleshoot just enough to piss me off, watching vids or listening to tunes while dragging files would slow Vista to a crawl, Vista would "lose" network shares and wouldn't be able to see them without a reboot, hell I could go on all day. So like I said I picked up a copy of Win7 HP when it was $50 just to play with it and learn to fix it when my customers bring in broken Win7 boxes (the only "fix" I was asked to do on Vista was to wipe it and put on XP) I have a feeling for day to day I'll be sticking with XP X64. All my games play, it multitasks nicely, doesn't blow through RAM like Vista did, just a nice stable OS. It is a damned shame MSFT didn't push it to be the next business OS, because it would have been perfect for those that want a solid and unbloated business OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually i bought XP x64 because I like to game , and frankly I do n't know where you got your info from but it has worked great for me .
I built my own PC ( AMD 7550,8Gb PC6400 , 2 500Gb HDD , 4650 1Gb GPU ) and have n't had a bit of trouble .
I simply made sure the motherboard supported XP X64 before I got it and all was good .
The only game I ran into any trouble with was King 's Bounty the Legend , but it was the No-DVD I was using , I ran the disc and all worked fine.The problem you are gon na find with ANY MSFT X64 is this-you HAVE TO crack every .
single. one .
of your games .
Why ? Because while even the older games have worked beautifully for me , their ^ \ % $ ^ \ % $ # DRM does n't work in x64 !
You get that stupid " Insert disc in drive " bullshit , when of course your disc IS in the fricking drive , so you have to go and keep cracks for all your games .
Oh , and watch out for the Starforce games , as you DO NOT want to have the " fun " of trying to remove that festering turd from x64 , because while they SAY they have an uninstaller , guess what ?
It do n't work on x64 either !
So you get to spend the day dual booting and hacking the reg to kill that crap .
So while I 'm glad Windows 7 x64 is working for you , my experience with Vista has made me leery .
It called home constantly , it had " senior moments " where it froze for 3-15 seconds , not enough to troubleshoot just enough to piss me off , watching vids or listening to tunes while dragging files would slow Vista to a crawl , Vista would " lose " network shares and would n't be able to see them without a reboot , hell I could go on all day .
So like I said I picked up a copy of Win7 HP when it was $ 50 just to play with it and learn to fix it when my customers bring in broken Win7 boxes ( the only " fix " I was asked to do on Vista was to wipe it and put on XP ) I have a feeling for day to day I 'll be sticking with XP X64 .
All my games play , it multitasks nicely , does n't blow through RAM like Vista did , just a nice stable OS .
It is a damned shame MSFT did n't push it to be the next business OS , because it would have been perfect for those that want a solid and unbloated business OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually i bought XP x64 because I like to game, and frankly I don't know where you got your info from but it has worked great for me.
I built my own PC (AMD 7550,8Gb PC6400, 2 500Gb HDD, 4650 1Gb GPU) and haven't had a bit of trouble.
I simply made sure the motherboard supported XP X64 before I got it and all was good.
The only game I ran into any trouble with was King's Bounty the Legend, but it was the No-DVD I was using, I ran the disc and all worked fine.The problem you are gonna find with ANY MSFT X64 is this-you HAVE TO crack every.
single. one.
of your games.
Why? Because while even the older games have worked beautifully for me, their ^\%$^\%$# DRM doesn't work in x64!
You get that stupid "Insert disc in drive" bullshit, when of course your disc IS in the fricking drive, so you have to go and keep cracks for all your games.
Oh, and watch out for the Starforce games, as you DO NOT want to have the "fun" of trying to remove that festering turd from x64, because while they SAY they have an uninstaller, guess what?
It don't work on x64 either!
So you get to spend the day dual booting and hacking the reg to kill that crap.
So while I'm glad Windows 7 x64 is working for you, my experience with Vista has made me leery.
It called home constantly, it had "senior moments" where it froze for 3-15 seconds, not enough to troubleshoot just enough to piss me off, watching vids or listening to tunes while dragging files would slow Vista to a crawl, Vista would "lose" network shares and wouldn't be able to see them without a reboot, hell I could go on all day.
So like I said I picked up a copy of Win7 HP when it was $50 just to play with it and learn to fix it when my customers bring in broken Win7 boxes (the only "fix" I was asked to do on Vista was to wipe it and put on XP) I have a feeling for day to day I'll be sticking with XP X64.
All my games play, it multitasks nicely, doesn't blow through RAM like Vista did, just a nice stable OS.
It is a damned shame MSFT didn't push it to be the next business OS, because it would have been perfect for those that want a solid and unbloated business OS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823639</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825605</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows applications are pre-compiled 99.999\% of the time - there is no need for a compiler for the vast majority of the users.<br>You trade "freedom" and "security" for ease of installation and setup.  Any linux user who installs something without personally reading every line of source code gives up the "security" gained from FOSS.  Any linux user who ends up grabbing a binary driver for their video card gives up "freedom".<br>--You should have trolled the registry and the lack of a competent equivalent to package managers.</p><p>Notepad is a great text editor.  If you want something different/more robust, there are tons of free ones.<br>--You should have trolled nothing - just queue the vi/emacs debate.</p><p>Windows is closed-source, so no, they don't ship it with the source code.<br>--You should have trolled the ridiculous licensing scheme for different versions, volume licenses, upgrade/full, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows applications are pre-compiled 99.999 \ % of the time - there is no need for a compiler for the vast majority of the users.You trade " freedom " and " security " for ease of installation and setup .
Any linux user who installs something without personally reading every line of source code gives up the " security " gained from FOSS .
Any linux user who ends up grabbing a binary driver for their video card gives up " freedom " .--You should have trolled the registry and the lack of a competent equivalent to package managers.Notepad is a great text editor .
If you want something different/more robust , there are tons of free ones.--You should have trolled nothing - just queue the vi/emacs debate.Windows is closed-source , so no , they do n't ship it with the source code.--You should have trolled the ridiculous licensing scheme for different versions , volume licenses , upgrade/full , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows applications are pre-compiled 99.999\% of the time - there is no need for a compiler for the vast majority of the users.You trade "freedom" and "security" for ease of installation and setup.
Any linux user who installs something without personally reading every line of source code gives up the "security" gained from FOSS.
Any linux user who ends up grabbing a binary driver for their video card gives up "freedom".--You should have trolled the registry and the lack of a competent equivalent to package managers.Notepad is a great text editor.
If you want something different/more robust, there are tons of free ones.--You should have trolled nothing - just queue the vi/emacs debate.Windows is closed-source, so no, they don't ship it with the source code.--You should have trolled the ridiculous licensing scheme for different versions, volume licenses, upgrade/full, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824837</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823397</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP X64 sucks and it is most assuredly not the same thing on any level as Win2K3 server.  You need to get out more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP X64 sucks and it is most assuredly not the same thing on any level as Win2K3 server .
You need to get out more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP X64 sucks and it is most assuredly not the same thing on any level as Win2K3 server.
You need to get out more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822999</id>
	<title>Re:Did we really expect different?</title>
	<author>sunderland56</author>
	<datestamp>1256137740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The article is about major changes in the scheduler and their effects. How can you have major kernel changes, but claim that it is just "refurbished Vista"?
<br> <br>
People complained long and loud about Vista. Microsoft addressed all of the complaints, and produced an OS that is faster, easier to use, and consumes less power. Now, people are complaining that this new OS is just "refurbished Vista". Was Vista just "refurbished XP"? Was XP just "refurbished Win95"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is about major changes in the scheduler and their effects .
How can you have major kernel changes , but claim that it is just " refurbished Vista " ?
People complained long and loud about Vista .
Microsoft addressed all of the complaints , and produced an OS that is faster , easier to use , and consumes less power .
Now , people are complaining that this new OS is just " refurbished Vista " .
Was Vista just " refurbished XP " ?
Was XP just " refurbished Win95 " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is about major changes in the scheduler and their effects.
How can you have major kernel changes, but claim that it is just "refurbished Vista"?
People complained long and loud about Vista.
Microsoft addressed all of the complaints, and produced an OS that is faster, easier to use, and consumes less power.
Now, people are complaining that this new OS is just "refurbished Vista".
Was Vista just "refurbished XP"?
Was XP just "refurbished Win95"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29833735</id>
	<title>Paid bug fix</title>
	<author>Ice Station Zebra</author>
	<datestamp>1256216580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft didn't do it right in Vista and is screwing you by making you pay for their bug fix.   It would be nice to see a law suite and for anyone who purchased Windows 7 to get a large rebate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft did n't do it right in Vista and is screwing you by making you pay for their bug fix .
It would be nice to see a law suite and for anyone who purchased Windows 7 to get a large rebate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft didn't do it right in Vista and is screwing you by making you pay for their bug fix.
It would be nice to see a law suite and for anyone who purchased Windows 7 to get a large rebate.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823697</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256141220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lot of crap from you there, sounds as if you hoped on the "lets all hate vista bandwagon".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lot of crap from you there , sounds as if you hoped on the " lets all hate vista bandwagon " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lot of crap from you there, sounds as if you hoped on the "lets all hate vista bandwagon".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826091</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1256151660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's literally no rational reason to buy a Mac.<br>Only fanboys would even consider it.<br>The fanboy phenomenon is all there is to Apple's sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's literally no rational reason to buy a Mac.Only fanboys would even consider it.The fanboy phenomenon is all there is to Apple 's sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's literally no rational reason to buy a Mac.Only fanboys would even consider it.The fanboy phenomenon is all there is to Apple's sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827525</id>
	<title>Re:Did we really expect different?</title>
	<author>DarkProphet</author>
	<datestamp>1256157660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, it \_is\_ refurbished Vista... that doesn't make it a bad thing, but there is a reason the version number was not incremented to v7.0.<br>XP was descended from the NT line, it has nothing to do with the Win9x architecture, no XP is not refurbished Win95.<br>Vista was a major architecture change from XP, notably in the audio/video path. Again, not a refurbished instance of the previous version.<br>Contrast that with Vista vs. 7, which are much more closely related. Its easy to see why people have the idea that 7 is more akin to a big service pack to Vista. Or as my buddy so eloquently put it: "Windows 7 is essentially Vista with liposuction and a boob job".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it \ _is \ _ refurbished Vista... that does n't make it a bad thing , but there is a reason the version number was not incremented to v7.0.XP was descended from the NT line , it has nothing to do with the Win9x architecture , no XP is not refurbished Win95.Vista was a major architecture change from XP , notably in the audio/video path .
Again , not a refurbished instance of the previous version.Contrast that with Vista vs. 7 , which are much more closely related .
Its easy to see why people have the idea that 7 is more akin to a big service pack to Vista .
Or as my buddy so eloquently put it : " Windows 7 is essentially Vista with liposuction and a boob job " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it \_is\_ refurbished Vista... that doesn't make it a bad thing, but there is a reason the version number was not incremented to v7.0.XP was descended from the NT line, it has nothing to do with the Win9x architecture, no XP is not refurbished Win95.Vista was a major architecture change from XP, notably in the audio/video path.
Again, not a refurbished instance of the previous version.Contrast that with Vista vs. 7, which are much more closely related.
Its easy to see why people have the idea that 7 is more akin to a big service pack to Vista.
Or as my buddy so eloquently put it: "Windows 7 is essentially Vista with liposuction and a boob job".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822999</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829429</id>
	<title>Re:Not all code can be done in parallel</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1256123040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're sort of right and sort of wrong.</p><p>Parallelism isn't basic stuff. Breaking tasks up into smaller chunks is basic stuff. If you happen to have a workload like Apache where you're doing one thing 1 million times, then it's easy peasy. However, if you have a primarily sequential task - like games - then it's particularly difficult. It's easy to split the IO off into different threads, and run that plus some minor tasks like audio off another core - but how do you balance the workload so that two or more cores stay busy as much as possible? Designing new algorithms to split tasks across cores? This isn't simplistic stuff that just pops into your head - it requires a lot of thought to get it right.</p><p>For a game like Crysis, you have enough physics and advanced graphics that there's significant gains from finding the right way. For many older games, multi-threading/multi-core support was done so poorly that close-to-single-threaded would run faster. (I say close to, because IO should always be split off, along with any task that can lock down the CPU)</p><p>Really, for games at least, it comes down to doing it right or not at all. A more optimized single-threaded game loop can be far easier to implement, and offer speed gains if you do multi-threading the wrong way. (which is common)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're sort of right and sort of wrong.Parallelism is n't basic stuff .
Breaking tasks up into smaller chunks is basic stuff .
If you happen to have a workload like Apache where you 're doing one thing 1 million times , then it 's easy peasy .
However , if you have a primarily sequential task - like games - then it 's particularly difficult .
It 's easy to split the IO off into different threads , and run that plus some minor tasks like audio off another core - but how do you balance the workload so that two or more cores stay busy as much as possible ?
Designing new algorithms to split tasks across cores ?
This is n't simplistic stuff that just pops into your head - it requires a lot of thought to get it right.For a game like Crysis , you have enough physics and advanced graphics that there 's significant gains from finding the right way .
For many older games , multi-threading/multi-core support was done so poorly that close-to-single-threaded would run faster .
( I say close to , because IO should always be split off , along with any task that can lock down the CPU ) Really , for games at least , it comes down to doing it right or not at all .
A more optimized single-threaded game loop can be far easier to implement , and offer speed gains if you do multi-threading the wrong way .
( which is common )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're sort of right and sort of wrong.Parallelism isn't basic stuff.
Breaking tasks up into smaller chunks is basic stuff.
If you happen to have a workload like Apache where you're doing one thing 1 million times, then it's easy peasy.
However, if you have a primarily sequential task - like games - then it's particularly difficult.
It's easy to split the IO off into different threads, and run that plus some minor tasks like audio off another core - but how do you balance the workload so that two or more cores stay busy as much as possible?
Designing new algorithms to split tasks across cores?
This isn't simplistic stuff that just pops into your head - it requires a lot of thought to get it right.For a game like Crysis, you have enough physics and advanced graphics that there's significant gains from finding the right way.
For many older games, multi-threading/multi-core support was done so poorly that close-to-single-threaded would run faster.
(I say close to, because IO should always be split off, along with any task that can lock down the CPU)Really, for games at least, it comes down to doing it right or not at all.
A more optimized single-threaded game loop can be far easier to implement, and offer speed gains if you do multi-threading the wrong way.
(which is common)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827829</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Itninja</author>
	<datestamp>1256115720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://slashdot.org/~Schnoogs/comments" title="slashdot.org">Schnoogs?</a> [slashdot.org] Is that you?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Schnoogs ?
[ slashdot.org ] Is that you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Schnoogs?
[slashdot.org] Is that you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824361</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256144460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for ACPI, SMBIOS, some WMI extensions, and probably a few more bits. Sure, it's not the old interrupt-based BIOS functionality - it's basically a load of information stored in tables in the BIOS, which are copied into main memory somewhere, and are acted on by the operating system. ACPI even includes executable code, in the form of a VM. Windows uses this for power management, getting information about the system (PCI configuration, for example), and controlling peripherals like sensors or fans.</p><p>In the case of ACPI (usually the biggest problem), Windows and Linux actually run the exact same code. If Linux handles it, and earlier versions of Windows handled it, then it's Microsoft's problem. Most of the problems with ACPI are actually Microsoft's fault to begin with - they wrote most of the spec, then implemented ACPI compilers that generate non-compliant code, and an ACPI runtime that doesn't even attempt to match the spec, and isn't properly documented anywhere. This inevitably leads to ACPI in BIOSes that was developed by trying a load of different things and testing against Windows, making backwards compatibility (or, indeed, any compatibility) much more difficult than it should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for ACPI , SMBIOS , some WMI extensions , and probably a few more bits .
Sure , it 's not the old interrupt-based BIOS functionality - it 's basically a load of information stored in tables in the BIOS , which are copied into main memory somewhere , and are acted on by the operating system .
ACPI even includes executable code , in the form of a VM .
Windows uses this for power management , getting information about the system ( PCI configuration , for example ) , and controlling peripherals like sensors or fans.In the case of ACPI ( usually the biggest problem ) , Windows and Linux actually run the exact same code .
If Linux handles it , and earlier versions of Windows handled it , then it 's Microsoft 's problem .
Most of the problems with ACPI are actually Microsoft 's fault to begin with - they wrote most of the spec , then implemented ACPI compilers that generate non-compliant code , and an ACPI runtime that does n't even attempt to match the spec , and is n't properly documented anywhere .
This inevitably leads to ACPI in BIOSes that was developed by trying a load of different things and testing against Windows , making backwards compatibility ( or , indeed , any compatibility ) much more difficult than it should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for ACPI, SMBIOS, some WMI extensions, and probably a few more bits.
Sure, it's not the old interrupt-based BIOS functionality - it's basically a load of information stored in tables in the BIOS, which are copied into main memory somewhere, and are acted on by the operating system.
ACPI even includes executable code, in the form of a VM.
Windows uses this for power management, getting information about the system (PCI configuration, for example), and controlling peripherals like sensors or fans.In the case of ACPI (usually the biggest problem), Windows and Linux actually run the exact same code.
If Linux handles it, and earlier versions of Windows handled it, then it's Microsoft's problem.
Most of the problems with ACPI are actually Microsoft's fault to begin with - they wrote most of the spec, then implemented ACPI compilers that generate non-compliant code, and an ACPI runtime that doesn't even attempt to match the spec, and isn't properly documented anywhere.
This inevitably leads to ACPI in BIOSes that was developed by trying a load of different things and testing against Windows, making backwards compatibility (or, indeed, any compatibility) much more difficult than it should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822651</id>
	<title>Not fast enough</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not fast enough for first post!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not fast enough for first post !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not fast enough for first post!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823167</id>
	<title>Re:Less power?</title>
	<author>Random2</author>
	<datestamp>1256138640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nooo! I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase! Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!</p></div><p>Don't you mean jigawatts?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nooo !
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase !
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW ! Do n't you mean jigawatts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nooo!
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase!
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!Don't you mean jigawatts?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825399</id>
	<title>Re:Less power?</title>
	<author>NitroWolf</author>
	<datestamp>1256149140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nooo! I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase! Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!</p></div><p>I think you mean 1.21 JW.  Gigawatts measure electrical power, Jigawatts measures temporal power.</p><p>But it's obvious your PC never achieves it's goal, since it didn't come back in time and try to date your mother.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nooo !
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase !
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW ! I think you mean 1.21 JW .
Gigawatts measure electrical power , Jigawatts measures temporal power.But it 's obvious your PC never achieves it 's goal , since it did n't come back in time and try to date your mother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nooo!
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase!
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!I think you mean 1.21 JW.
Gigawatts measure electrical power, Jigawatts measures temporal power.But it's obvious your PC never achieves it's goal, since it didn't come back in time and try to date your mother.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823503</id>
	<title>Re:Not Really</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1256140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but GCD seems to be a user-space parallelism library, while TFS is talking about kernel-space task scheduling. I hate the unintended (and bad) pun but I think you were comparing apples and oranges here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct me if I 'm wrong , but GCD seems to be a user-space parallelism library , while TFS is talking about kernel-space task scheduling .
I hate the unintended ( and bad ) pun but I think you were comparing apples and oranges here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct me if I'm wrong, but GCD seems to be a user-space parallelism library, while TFS is talking about kernel-space task scheduling.
I hate the unintended (and bad) pun but I think you were comparing apples and oranges here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822871</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832707</id>
	<title>Windows 7 is the best...</title>
	<author>LiveLongAndProsper</author>
	<datestamp>1256202600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have used linux but windows 7 get things done a lot faster on the desktop... More GREAT Software and Games too... unlike many linux apps... Windows is still the best for the desktop</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have used linux but windows 7 get things done a lot faster on the desktop... More GREAT Software and Games too... unlike many linux apps... Windows is still the best for the desktop</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have used linux but windows 7 get things done a lot faster on the desktop... More GREAT Software and Games too... unlike many linux apps... Windows is still the best for the desktop</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824657</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256145960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wrong, windows 7 needs to support this with no additional drivers, linux does so<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wrong , windows 7 needs to support this with no additional drivers , linux does so : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wrong, windows 7 needs to support this with no additional drivers, linux does so :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823321</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1256139480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that isn't a Microsoft problem at all, since they didn't write the drivers. Contact Abit for support.</p></div></blockquote><p>I think that's being a little too easy on Microsoft.  Getting drivers right is a shared effort of both the hardware vendor and MS.  Both parties need to do their jobs right in order for the overall system to work.</p><p>Even if it is a bad driver, one might blame MS for not making Windows 7 sufficiently compatible with Vista at the device-driver-interface level.  Or for building an ecosystem in which closed-source, maintainable-only-by-the-OEM drivers are the norm, etc.</p><p>I think the best we can say here is that the MS-Abit team seems to have produced a bug.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that is n't a Microsoft problem at all , since they did n't write the drivers .
Contact Abit for support.I think that 's being a little too easy on Microsoft .
Getting drivers right is a shared effort of both the hardware vendor and MS. Both parties need to do their jobs right in order for the overall system to work.Even if it is a bad driver , one might blame MS for not making Windows 7 sufficiently compatible with Vista at the device-driver-interface level .
Or for building an ecosystem in which closed-source , maintainable-only-by-the-OEM drivers are the norm , etc.I think the best we can say here is that the MS-Abit team seems to have produced a bug .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that isn't a Microsoft problem at all, since they didn't write the drivers.
Contact Abit for support.I think that's being a little too easy on Microsoft.
Getting drivers right is a shared effort of both the hardware vendor and MS.  Both parties need to do their jobs right in order for the overall system to work.Even if it is a bad driver, one might blame MS for not making Windows 7 sufficiently compatible with Vista at the device-driver-interface level.
Or for building an ecosystem in which closed-source, maintainable-only-by-the-OEM drivers are the norm, etc.I think the best we can say here is that the MS-Abit team seems to have produced a bug.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823701</id>
	<title>Win 7  XP particularly with NUMA multi-socket</title>
	<author>benwaggoner</author>
	<datestamp>1256141280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This test was only using a single socket system. Perf differences from XP are going to be greater on a NUMA multisocket systems like Barcelona or Nehalem. XP predates NUMA on the PC architecture, while Vista and Win 7 got a lot of tuning for it.</p><p>This can be a big help for video encoding and other highly multithreaded tasks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This test was only using a single socket system .
Perf differences from XP are going to be greater on a NUMA multisocket systems like Barcelona or Nehalem .
XP predates NUMA on the PC architecture , while Vista and Win 7 got a lot of tuning for it.This can be a big help for video encoding and other highly multithreaded tasks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This test was only using a single socket system.
Perf differences from XP are going to be greater on a NUMA multisocket systems like Barcelona or Nehalem.
XP predates NUMA on the PC architecture, while Vista and Win 7 got a lot of tuning for it.This can be a big help for video encoding and other highly multithreaded tasks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826915</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1256154780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If we take this as true, it's an example of why for some people, paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense. You give up the freedom to do all sorts of things (like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example), but you gain freedom from a lot of problems of this sort.</i></p><p>My Macbook Pro stopped charging its battery. To fix it I had to download and install an update to the power management firmware, a process every bit as "scary" as applying a BIOS update. Then, a few months later, the battery swelled so much it popped open its enclosure.</p><p>But hey, having a hardware and software monoculture solves these kinds of problems, right? Dream on. All it really buys you is the ability to hold the vendor completely accountable for any problems. But then again, it's that way with all laptops, ain't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If we take this as true , it 's an example of why for some people , paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense .
You give up the freedom to do all sorts of things ( like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example ) , but you gain freedom from a lot of problems of this sort.My Macbook Pro stopped charging its battery .
To fix it I had to download and install an update to the power management firmware , a process every bit as " scary " as applying a BIOS update .
Then , a few months later , the battery swelled so much it popped open its enclosure.But hey , having a hardware and software monoculture solves these kinds of problems , right ?
Dream on .
All it really buys you is the ability to hold the vendor completely accountable for any problems .
But then again , it 's that way with all laptops , ai n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If we take this as true, it's an example of why for some people, paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense.
You give up the freedom to do all sorts of things (like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example), but you gain freedom from a lot of problems of this sort.My Macbook Pro stopped charging its battery.
To fix it I had to download and install an update to the power management firmware, a process every bit as "scary" as applying a BIOS update.
Then, a few months later, the battery swelled so much it popped open its enclosure.But hey, having a hardware and software monoculture solves these kinds of problems, right?
Dream on.
All it really buys you is the ability to hold the vendor completely accountable for any problems.
But then again, it's that way with all laptops, ain't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824905</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>BigDish</author>
	<datestamp>1256147040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keeping in mind that you have provided almost no information in your post, this is most likely either a BIOS bug or a configuration issue on Linux - I'm leaning toward both actually.  Once the OS takes over power/thermal management from the BIOS, the BIOS basically stays out of the way - so Windows is getting control over your fan and managing it.<br>Upon soft rebooting, I would expect the BIOS to step back in, but it sounds like this isn't happening - here is the BIOS bug.  Now, you likely do not have Linux configured correctly to do thermal management, so if you only boot in Linux, the BIOS is still handling it, but if you have loaded Windows first (and your buggy BIOS has not reset it) nothing is handling it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keeping in mind that you have provided almost no information in your post , this is most likely either a BIOS bug or a configuration issue on Linux - I 'm leaning toward both actually .
Once the OS takes over power/thermal management from the BIOS , the BIOS basically stays out of the way - so Windows is getting control over your fan and managing it.Upon soft rebooting , I would expect the BIOS to step back in , but it sounds like this is n't happening - here is the BIOS bug .
Now , you likely do not have Linux configured correctly to do thermal management , so if you only boot in Linux , the BIOS is still handling it , but if you have loaded Windows first ( and your buggy BIOS has not reset it ) nothing is handling it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keeping in mind that you have provided almost no information in your post, this is most likely either a BIOS bug or a configuration issue on Linux - I'm leaning toward both actually.
Once the OS takes over power/thermal management from the BIOS, the BIOS basically stays out of the way - so Windows is getting control over your fan and managing it.Upon soft rebooting, I would expect the BIOS to step back in, but it sounds like this isn't happening - here is the BIOS bug.
Now, you likely do not have Linux configured correctly to do thermal management, so if you only boot in Linux, the BIOS is still handling it, but if you have loaded Windows first (and your buggy BIOS has not reset it) nothing is handling it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822871</id>
	<title>Re:Not Really</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256137200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>No, it's not surprising.</i></p></div><p>Should have implemented <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand\_Central\_Dispatch" title="wikipedia.org">Grand Central</a> [wikipedia.org], I hear it's free and opensource. Even has the Apache license so that it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software.</p><p>I mean they already borrowed the <a href="http://www.gcn.com/Blogs/Tech-Blog/2006/12/Windows-Vista-network-stack-not-so-new.aspx" title="gcn.com">TCP IP stack.</a> [gcn.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's not surprising.Should have implemented Grand Central [ wikipedia.org ] , I hear it 's free and opensource .
Even has the Apache license so that it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software.I mean they already borrowed the TCP IP stack .
[ gcn.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> No, it's not surprising.Should have implemented Grand Central [wikipedia.org], I hear it's free and opensource.
Even has the Apache license so that it allows use of the source code for the development of proprietary software.I mean they already borrowed the TCP IP stack.
[gcn.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823439</id>
	<title>Re:Windows kernel still had global locks then? Wow</title>
	<author>Brian Feldman</author>
	<datestamp>1256140080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You need to learn how to read, because the reality described in the article is nothing like what you are saying.  Additionally, no, "that kind of thing" that you are incorrectly describing was not "fixed" in the Linux kernel "like, at least 5-10 years ago."  The Linux of 5-10 years ago had some of the worst use of global locking around.  This isn't even <b>about</b> global locks, though; it is about replacing one particular lock implementation's use of a global mutex while modifying lock data structures to embedding the mutexes within the lock data structures.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Anytime a thread wants to access an item that might be claimed by another thread, it must use a lock to make sure that only one thread at a time can modify the item. Prior to Windows 7, when a thread needed to get or access a lock, its request had to go through a global locking mechanism. This mechanism -- the kernel dispatcher lock -- would handle the requests. Because it was unique and global, it handled potentially thousands of requests from all processors on which Windows ran. As a result, this dispatcher lock was becoming a major bottleneck. In fact, it was a principal gating factor that kept Windows Server from running on more than 64 processors.</p><p>New locking mechanism<br>Windows 7 includes a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources. This permits Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty. On systems with only a few processors, however, the old kernel dispatcher lock was not overburdened, so this new mechanism provides no noticeable improvement in threading performance on desktops and small servers.</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You need to learn how to read , because the reality described in the article is nothing like what you are saying .
Additionally , no , " that kind of thing " that you are incorrectly describing was not " fixed " in the Linux kernel " like , at least 5-10 years ago .
" The Linux of 5-10 years ago had some of the worst use of global locking around .
This is n't even about global locks , though ; it is about replacing one particular lock implementation 's use of a global mutex while modifying lock data structures to embedding the mutexes within the lock data structures.Anytime a thread wants to access an item that might be claimed by another thread , it must use a lock to make sure that only one thread at a time can modify the item .
Prior to Windows 7 , when a thread needed to get or access a lock , its request had to go through a global locking mechanism .
This mechanism -- the kernel dispatcher lock -- would handle the requests .
Because it was unique and global , it handled potentially thousands of requests from all processors on which Windows ran .
As a result , this dispatcher lock was becoming a major bottleneck .
In fact , it was a principal gating factor that kept Windows Server from running on more than 64 processors.New locking mechanismWindows 7 includes a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources .
This permits Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty .
On systems with only a few processors , however , the old kernel dispatcher lock was not overburdened , so this new mechanism provides no noticeable improvement in threading performance on desktops and small servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You need to learn how to read, because the reality described in the article is nothing like what you are saying.
Additionally, no, "that kind of thing" that you are incorrectly describing was not "fixed" in the Linux kernel "like, at least 5-10 years ago.
"  The Linux of 5-10 years ago had some of the worst use of global locking around.
This isn't even about global locks, though; it is about replacing one particular lock implementation's use of a global mutex while modifying lock data structures to embedding the mutexes within the lock data structures.Anytime a thread wants to access an item that might be claimed by another thread, it must use a lock to make sure that only one thread at a time can modify the item.
Prior to Windows 7, when a thread needed to get or access a lock, its request had to go through a global locking mechanism.
This mechanism -- the kernel dispatcher lock -- would handle the requests.
Because it was unique and global, it handled potentially thousands of requests from all processors on which Windows ran.
As a result, this dispatcher lock was becoming a major bottleneck.
In fact, it was a principal gating factor that kept Windows Server from running on more than 64 processors.New locking mechanismWindows 7 includes a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources.
This permits Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty.
On systems with only a few processors, however, the old kernel dispatcher lock was not overburdened, so this new mechanism provides no noticeable improvement in threading performance on desktops and small servers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Suck what? The fact that Windows is finally catching up to Unix in this area?</p><p>What are you going to test this feature out on?</p><p>You can buy 1024 CPU Linux boxes. 100 cpu Unix boxes have been commonplace for awhile.</p><p>Microsoft is last to the party (like always).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Suck what ?
The fact that Windows is finally catching up to Unix in this area ? What are you going to test this feature out on ? You can buy 1024 CPU Linux boxes .
100 cpu Unix boxes have been commonplace for awhile.Microsoft is last to the party ( like always ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suck what?
The fact that Windows is finally catching up to Unix in this area?What are you going to test this feature out on?You can buy 1024 CPU Linux boxes.
100 cpu Unix boxes have been commonplace for awhile.Microsoft is last to the party (like always).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>The MAZZTer</author>
	<datestamp>1256139900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You don't even need to *have* a BIOS to run Win7.</p></div></blockquote><p>Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right?  The BIOS.  SOMETHING has to load the MBR from disk and execute it.</p><p>After that, yeah, modern Windows tends to do it's own thing and doesn't use the BIOS for anything.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even need to * have * a BIOS to run Win7.Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right ?
The BIOS .
SOMETHING has to load the MBR from disk and execute it.After that , yeah , modern Windows tends to do it 's own thing and does n't use the BIOS for anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even need to *have* a BIOS to run Win7.Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right?
The BIOS.
SOMETHING has to load the MBR from disk and execute it.After that, yeah, modern Windows tends to do it's own thing and doesn't use the BIOS for anything.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822997</id>
	<title>Re:Not Really</title>
	<author>gad\_zuki!</author>
	<datestamp>1256137740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;No, it's not surprising.</p><p>Im not surprised. I think we're going to find that as people start taking Win7 apart that its not too much different from Vista because Vista itself was pretty efficient to begin with. The Vista bashing was really unjustified and after you got over issues like old drivers, old hardware, and pre-SP1 UAC, you pretty much have Win7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; No , it 's not surprising.Im not surprised .
I think we 're going to find that as people start taking Win7 apart that its not too much different from Vista because Vista itself was pretty efficient to begin with .
The Vista bashing was really unjustified and after you got over issues like old drivers , old hardware , and pre-SP1 UAC , you pretty much have Win7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;No, it's not surprising.Im not surprised.
I think we're going to find that as people start taking Win7 apart that its not too much different from Vista because Vista itself was pretty efficient to begin with.
The Vista bashing was really unjustified and after you got over issues like old drivers, old hardware, and pre-SP1 UAC, you pretty much have Win7.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822685</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824525</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>cachimaster</author>
	<datestamp>1256145300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nothing further than the truth. BIOS stays resident and executes all the time in the form of SMM (System managament mode). It's used *specially* in power managament rutines.</p><p>How do you think that a USB keyboard works in DOS whitout USB drivers? is the SMM BIOS doing the conversion.</p><p>Yeah, you think that when you run Linux or BSD you ar in complete control of the machine and no propietary code runs? NO. RTFM.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting.Nothing further than the truth .
BIOS stays resident and executes all the time in the form of SMM ( System managament mode ) .
It 's used * specially * in power managament rutines.How do you think that a USB keyboard works in DOS whitout USB drivers ?
is the SMM BIOS doing the conversion.Yeah , you think that when you run Linux or BSD you ar in complete control of the machine and no propietary code runs ?
NO. RTFM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting.Nothing further than the truth.
BIOS stays resident and executes all the time in the form of SMM (System managament mode).
It's used *specially* in power managament rutines.How do you think that a USB keyboard works in DOS whitout USB drivers?
is the SMM BIOS doing the conversion.Yeah, you think that when you run Linux or BSD you ar in complete control of the machine and no propietary code runs?
NO. RTFM.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175</id>
	<title>Most interesting part uncommented...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256138640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>In the article,t he numbers show that Vista SP2 gives a clear edge over Win XP SP3 in every case.  I'm surprised that this wasn't commented on, given the general perception of Vista's sluggishness.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the article,t he numbers show that Vista SP2 gives a clear edge over Win XP SP3 in every case .
I 'm surprised that this was n't commented on , given the general perception of Vista 's sluggishness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the article,t he numbers show that Vista SP2 gives a clear edge over Win XP SP3 in every case.
I'm surprised that this wasn't commented on, given the general perception of Vista's sluggishness.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826193</id>
	<title>Re:Most interesting part uncommented...</title>
	<author>nschubach</author>
	<datestamp>1256152080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to sounds snooty, but there are plenty of other sites you can go to if you desire Windows "love fests."  Leave us to our own preferential articles.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to sounds snooty , but there are plenty of other sites you can go to if you desire Windows " love fests .
" Leave us to our own preferential articles .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to sounds snooty, but there are plenty of other sites you can go to if you desire Windows "love fests.
"  Leave us to our own preferential articles.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827307</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1256156580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well... Linux was invented because Microsoft had been<br>sandbagging on that whole "actually using the full<br>features of the 80386" thing. The idea that Linux might<br>be used as a desktop OS is not as strange as some people<br>might like to claim.</p><p>OTOH, Unix can be beaten into submission and made into<br>a proper GUI environment as demonstrated by NeXT and<br>MacOS.</p><p>I can drag and drop with reckless abandon and saturate<br>as many cores as I happen to have.</p><p>It's far easier for a civilized OS to act like a barbarian...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well... Linux was invented because Microsoft had beensandbagging on that whole " actually using the fullfeatures of the 80386 " thing .
The idea that Linux mightbe used as a desktop OS is not as strange as some peoplemight like to claim.OTOH , Unix can be beaten into submission and made intoa proper GUI environment as demonstrated by NeXT andMacOS.I can drag and drop with reckless abandon and saturateas many cores as I happen to have.It 's far easier for a civilized OS to act like a barbarian.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well... Linux was invented because Microsoft had beensandbagging on that whole "actually using the fullfeatures of the 80386" thing.
The idea that Linux mightbe used as a desktop OS is not as strange as some peoplemight like to claim.OTOH, Unix can be beaten into submission and made intoa proper GUI environment as demonstrated by NeXT andMacOS.I can drag and drop with reckless abandon and saturateas many cores as I happen to have.It's far easier for a civilized OS to act like a barbarian...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823643</id>
	<title>Re:Windows version - 7 *ULTIMATE*</title>
	<author>Gadget\_Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1256140980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They tested Windows ULTIMATE, the best of the newest against the oldest patched-up version of XP.</p></div><p>What? They tested the best of the newest version of Windows 7 against the best of the newest version of XP. The oldest version of XP would have no service packs at all.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And it only saved a marginal amount of power.</p></div><p>17\% is not marginal. What would you consider to be non-marginal? Greater than 100\%?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What about the versions that the average Joe is going to be running?</p></div><p>Average Joe doesn't use a Xeon processor either. The choice of operating system versions seems appropriate for the level of hardware. Average Joe should just wait until someone does a comparison using games &amp; video encoders if he wants real world tests more suitable to his needs. This test was very specific to one measure of performance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They tested Windows ULTIMATE , the best of the newest against the oldest patched-up version of XP.What ?
They tested the best of the newest version of Windows 7 against the best of the newest version of XP .
The oldest version of XP would have no service packs at all.And it only saved a marginal amount of power.17 \ % is not marginal .
What would you consider to be non-marginal ?
Greater than 100 \ % ? What about the versions that the average Joe is going to be running ? Average Joe does n't use a Xeon processor either .
The choice of operating system versions seems appropriate for the level of hardware .
Average Joe should just wait until someone does a comparison using games &amp; video encoders if he wants real world tests more suitable to his needs .
This test was very specific to one measure of performance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tested Windows ULTIMATE, the best of the newest against the oldest patched-up version of XP.What?
They tested the best of the newest version of Windows 7 against the best of the newest version of XP.
The oldest version of XP would have no service packs at all.And it only saved a marginal amount of power.17\% is not marginal.
What would you consider to be non-marginal?
Greater than 100\%?What about the versions that the average Joe is going to be running?Average Joe doesn't use a Xeon processor either.
The choice of operating system versions seems appropriate for the level of hardware.
Average Joe should just wait until someone does a comparison using games &amp; video encoders if he wants real world tests more suitable to his needs.
This test was very specific to one measure of performance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823343</id>
	<title>Re:Less power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps with the introduction of  500-600 mile batteries for cars, we can finally see 72 hr batteries for laptops and possibly take advantage of this "proclaimed" 17\% increase in power reduction from Windows 7. Might turn out to be 78 hrs on batteries !!! WooT<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... but then again, if its not green, Al Gore and the Tree Huggers as well as the EU won't embrace it proactively. Perhaps the newer versions of Ubuntu will be the ticket !!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps with the introduction of 500-600 mile batteries for cars , we can finally see 72 hr batteries for laptops and possibly take advantage of this " proclaimed " 17 \ % increase in power reduction from Windows 7 .
Might turn out to be 78 hrs on batteries ! ! !
WooT .... but then again , if its not green , Al Gore and the Tree Huggers as well as the EU wo n't embrace it proactively .
Perhaps the newer versions of Ubuntu will be the ticket ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps with the introduction of  500-600 mile batteries for cars, we can finally see 72 hr batteries for laptops and possibly take advantage of this "proclaimed" 17\% increase in power reduction from Windows 7.
Might turn out to be 78 hrs on batteries !!!
WooT .... but then again, if its not green, Al Gore and the Tree Huggers as well as the EU won't embrace it proactively.
Perhaps the newer versions of Ubuntu will be the ticket !!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822799</id>
	<title>Power savings</title>
	<author>NoYob</author>
	<datestamp>1256136840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>From what I've seen, unless you're on a Core i7, you're not getting the power savings. I'm still running a Core Duo on my Windows XP sp3 box and I don't think it'll do me any good. <p>Seeing the performance increase and in some cases decrease from Vista to 7, I don't see that as a selling feature either.</p><p>What does intrigue me is the ability of the OS to allocate threads to the different cores. That is something I would want to learn more about. </p><p>Basically, unless you're on a workstation and running intensive applications, you're not going to benefit from buying Windows 7 for an old machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I 've seen , unless you 're on a Core i7 , you 're not getting the power savings .
I 'm still running a Core Duo on my Windows XP sp3 box and I do n't think it 'll do me any good .
Seeing the performance increase and in some cases decrease from Vista to 7 , I do n't see that as a selling feature either.What does intrigue me is the ability of the OS to allocate threads to the different cores .
That is something I would want to learn more about .
Basically , unless you 're on a workstation and running intensive applications , you 're not going to benefit from buying Windows 7 for an old machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I've seen, unless you're on a Core i7, you're not getting the power savings.
I'm still running a Core Duo on my Windows XP sp3 box and I don't think it'll do me any good.
Seeing the performance increase and in some cases decrease from Vista to 7, I don't see that as a selling feature either.What does intrigue me is the ability of the OS to allocate threads to the different cores.
That is something I would want to learn more about.
Basically, unless you're on a workstation and running intensive applications, you're not going to benefit from buying Windows 7 for an old machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823501</id>
	<title>Just catching up?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has been how linux has done it since like the 80s when SMP was introduced.  SunOS does it this way, UNIX did it this way, is there actually a multi-threading model that doesn't involve processor affinity?  Besides the small textbook examples that are oversimplified and not useful in the real world....</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has been how linux has done it since like the 80s when SMP was introduced .
SunOS does it this way , UNIX did it this way , is there actually a multi-threading model that does n't involve processor affinity ?
Besides the small textbook examples that are oversimplified and not useful in the real world... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has been how linux has done it since like the 80s when SMP was introduced.
SunOS does it this way, UNIX did it this way, is there actually a multi-threading model that doesn't involve processor affinity?
Besides the small textbook examples that are oversimplified and not useful in the real world....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824837</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256146740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Suck it, nerds.</p></div><p>So they actually bothered to ship it with a compiler, source, and a text editor that's better than note/wordpad?</p><p>I didn't think so.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suck it , nerds.So they actually bothered to ship it with a compiler , source , and a text editor that 's better than note/wordpad ? I did n't think so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suck it, nerds.So they actually bothered to ship it with a compiler, source, and a text editor that's better than note/wordpad?I didn't think so.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824029</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1256143080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>XP x64 shares service packs with Windows Server 2003, and is built upon the same code base.</p><p>The reason why XP x64 has gained the "it sucks" reputation is mostly due to missing consumer drivers for XP x64. Almost all decent server hardware supports WS03 x64, but there is a lot of consumer out there that was never supported on XP x64.</p><p>Since Microsoft has made x64 support mandatory for Vista upwards, this has changed greatly. Vista SP1 and WS08 are built upon the same code page, just like WS08R2 and Windows 7 are. This makes drivers support easy - and now with Windows 7, many manufacturers start shipping a x64 OS by default (which makes sense - 4GB of RAM isn't "much" anymore).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>XP x64 shares service packs with Windows Server 2003 , and is built upon the same code base.The reason why XP x64 has gained the " it sucks " reputation is mostly due to missing consumer drivers for XP x64 .
Almost all decent server hardware supports WS03 x64 , but there is a lot of consumer out there that was never supported on XP x64.Since Microsoft has made x64 support mandatory for Vista upwards , this has changed greatly .
Vista SP1 and WS08 are built upon the same code page , just like WS08R2 and Windows 7 are .
This makes drivers support easy - and now with Windows 7 , many manufacturers start shipping a x64 OS by default ( which makes sense - 4GB of RAM is n't " much " anymore ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP x64 shares service packs with Windows Server 2003, and is built upon the same code base.The reason why XP x64 has gained the "it sucks" reputation is mostly due to missing consumer drivers for XP x64.
Almost all decent server hardware supports WS03 x64, but there is a lot of consumer out there that was never supported on XP x64.Since Microsoft has made x64 support mandatory for Vista upwards, this has changed greatly.
Vista SP1 and WS08 are built upon the same code page, just like WS08R2 and Windows 7 are.
This makes drivers support easy - and now with Windows 7, many manufacturers start shipping a x64 OS by default (which makes sense - 4GB of RAM isn't "much" anymore).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29830059</id>
	<title>Automatic power management in Windows</title>
	<author>springbox</author>
	<datestamp>1256127360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was really hoping this would have been fixed eventually, but in addition to enabling support for automatic processor/fan throttling in your BIOS, you must also configure Windows to use these features. In the "Power Options" (not sure what it's called in Windows 7) in the control panel, you need to set the power scheme to "Minimal Power Management." Different power management profiles enable different strategies for throttling hardware into lower power states <i>in about the most non-obvious way possible.</i> Anyway, I hope that works for you. (This also applies to Windows XP. Not sure about Windows 2000, though.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was really hoping this would have been fixed eventually , but in addition to enabling support for automatic processor/fan throttling in your BIOS , you must also configure Windows to use these features .
In the " Power Options " ( not sure what it 's called in Windows 7 ) in the control panel , you need to set the power scheme to " Minimal Power Management .
" Different power management profiles enable different strategies for throttling hardware into lower power states in about the most non-obvious way possible .
Anyway , I hope that works for you .
( This also applies to Windows XP .
Not sure about Windows 2000 , though .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was really hoping this would have been fixed eventually, but in addition to enabling support for automatic processor/fan throttling in your BIOS, you must also configure Windows to use these features.
In the "Power Options" (not sure what it's called in Windows 7) in the control panel, you need to set the power scheme to "Minimal Power Management.
" Different power management profiles enable different strategies for throttling hardware into lower power states in about the most non-obvious way possible.
Anyway, I hope that works for you.
(This also applies to Windows XP.
Not sure about Windows 2000, though.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823145</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1256138580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Windows drivers are using every setting of that motherboard, while the Linux drivers dont even know about some of them.<br>
<br>
You only experience problems in Linux.<br>
<br>
Could it maybe be that your Linux installation cannot cope with some of those settings, which it doesnt even know exist, being non-default?<br>
<br>
Use your brain instead of your religion. The problem is on the Linux end. Nobody at all is getting paid to make sure that every advanced feature of your motherboard is leveraged under Linux, while there is surely a team of developers bring paid a very healthy salary to make sure that every feature can be leveraged under Windows.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Windows drivers are using every setting of that motherboard , while the Linux drivers dont even know about some of them .
You only experience problems in Linux .
Could it maybe be that your Linux installation can not cope with some of those settings , which it doesnt even know exist , being non-default ?
Use your brain instead of your religion .
The problem is on the Linux end .
Nobody at all is getting paid to make sure that every advanced feature of your motherboard is leveraged under Linux , while there is surely a team of developers bring paid a very healthy salary to make sure that every feature can be leveraged under Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Windows drivers are using every setting of that motherboard, while the Linux drivers dont even know about some of them.
You only experience problems in Linux.
Could it maybe be that your Linux installation cannot cope with some of those settings, which it doesnt even know exist, being non-default?
Use your brain instead of your religion.
The problem is on the Linux end.
Nobody at all is getting paid to make sure that every advanced feature of your motherboard is leveraged under Linux, while there is surely a team of developers bring paid a very healthy salary to make sure that every feature can be leveraged under Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829645</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1256124480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of interest, why is there this gulf between desktop and server anyway? Shouldn't both just simply be extra software code on top of the core of the OS?</p><p>In other words, shouldn't "server activity" simply be another piece of software like a browser?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of interest , why is there this gulf between desktop and server anyway ?
Should n't both just simply be extra software code on top of the core of the OS ? In other words , should n't " server activity " simply be another piece of software like a browser ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of interest, why is there this gulf between desktop and server anyway?
Shouldn't both just simply be extra software code on top of the core of the OS?In other words, shouldn't "server activity" simply be another piece of software like a browser?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823281</id>
	<title>Re:Windows kernel still had global locks then? Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You pick one feature, which may or may not be the same as what Linux is doing, then use that to claim Windows is behind the times?</p><p>Meanwhile, normal people can't use a Linux desktop worth a damn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You pick one feature , which may or may not be the same as what Linux is doing , then use that to claim Windows is behind the times ? Meanwhile , normal people ca n't use a Linux desktop worth a damn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You pick one feature, which may or may not be the same as what Linux is doing, then use that to claim Windows is behind the times?Meanwhile, normal people can't use a Linux desktop worth a damn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826225</id>
	<title>Shill or news?</title>
	<author>rinoid</author>
	<datestamp>1256152140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am definitely interested in how Windows 7 fares in the world but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  I'm pretty sure this was posted as an infoworld.com link bait piece. 5 links to various infoworld pieces.
Wonder who is watching their analytics today rubbing their hands laughing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am definitely interested in how Windows 7 fares in the world but ... I 'm pretty sure this was posted as an infoworld.com link bait piece .
5 links to various infoworld pieces .
Wonder who is watching their analytics today rubbing their hands laughing .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am definitely interested in how Windows 7 fares in the world but ...  I'm pretty sure this was posted as an infoworld.com link bait piece.
5 links to various infoworld pieces.
Wonder who is watching their analytics today rubbing their hands laughing ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822883</id>
	<title>slashdot censoring comments about its twitter feed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>twitter feed gone, slashdot censoring its comments about it.</p><p>maybe if its main site wasnt to slow people wouldnt have to use twitter...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>twitter feed gone , slashdot censoring its comments about it.maybe if its main site wasnt to slow people wouldnt have to use twitter.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>twitter feed gone, slashdot censoring its comments about it.maybe if its main site wasnt to slow people wouldnt have to use twitter...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823965</id>
	<title>I feel like I'm on CNet</title>
	<author>Again</author>
	<datestamp>1256142720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intelligence level of so many comments, one after another make me feel like I'm on CNet.</p><p>I better leave before my IQ level gets diminished too far and I too start foaming at the mouth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intelligence level of so many comments , one after another make me feel like I 'm on CNet.I better leave before my IQ level gets diminished too far and I too start foaming at the mouth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intelligence level of so many comments, one after another make me feel like I'm on CNet.I better leave before my IQ level gets diminished too far and I too start foaming at the mouth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832313</id>
	<title>Re:Most interesting part uncommented...</title>
	<author>randyleepublic</author>
	<datestamp>1256152680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>XP's SP3 is nothing but a deliberate gum up by M$ to make Vista not seem so bad.  Compare 32 bit Vista to 32 bit XP SP2 and the results would be a whole lot different.
<br> <br>
Compare XP64 to Vista 64 and the same results will emerge.  There is no such thing as free cruft!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>XP 's SP3 is nothing but a deliberate gum up by M $ to make Vista not seem so bad .
Compare 32 bit Vista to 32 bit XP SP2 and the results would be a whole lot different .
Compare XP64 to Vista 64 and the same results will emerge .
There is no such thing as free cruft !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>XP's SP3 is nothing but a deliberate gum up by M$ to make Vista not seem so bad.
Compare 32 bit Vista to 32 bit XP SP2 and the results would be a whole lot different.
Compare XP64 to Vista 64 and the same results will emerge.
There is no such thing as free cruft!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</id>
	<title>Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Suck it, nerds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Suck it , nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Suck it, nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824159</id>
	<title>Re:Does it really matter? Not for me.</title>
	<author>lukas84</author>
	<datestamp>1256143560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Virtualbox supports multiple VCPUs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Virtualbox supports multiple VCPUs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Virtualbox supports multiple VCPUs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822685</id>
	<title>Not Really</title>
	<author>Mikkeles</author>
	<datestamp>1256136360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>'What might be surprising is that Windows 7's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch,'</i></p><p>No, it's not surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'What might be surprising is that Windows 7 's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch,'No , it 's not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'What might be surprising is that Windows 7's multithreading changes did not deliver more of a performance punch,'No, it's not surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823777</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256141760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm, I didn't know Windows could affect the BIOS. But what do I know, I'm just a lowly IT Admin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm , I did n't know Windows could affect the BIOS .
But what do I know , I 'm just a lowly IT Admin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm, I didn't know Windows could affect the BIOS.
But what do I know, I'm just a lowly IT Admin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823709</id>
	<title>Win7 isn't supposed to speed up quad cores</title>
	<author>MikeURL</author>
	<datestamp>1256141340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The claim, by Microsoft, is that Win7 will be much faster than previous versions of windows once the number of cores begins to exceed 8.  And it won't really shine until the number of cores is much higher than that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The claim , by Microsoft , is that Win7 will be much faster than previous versions of windows once the number of cores begins to exceed 8 .
And it wo n't really shine until the number of cores is much higher than that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The claim, by Microsoft, is that Win7 will be much faster than previous versions of windows once the number of cores begins to exceed 8.
And it won't really shine until the number of cores is much higher than that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29840341</id>
	<title>Re:Harldy a surprise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256207100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's good to see you freetards are still the same old attention-seeking "woe is me" crybitches you've always been.  Poor Linux babies can't stand that other people don't see the "obvious" superiority of their personal choice.  Wah wah wah muthafucka.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good to see you freetards are still the same old attention-seeking " woe is me " crybitches you 've always been .
Poor Linux babies ca n't stand that other people do n't see the " obvious " superiority of their personal choice .
Wah wah wah muthafucka .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good to see you freetards are still the same old attention-seeking "woe is me" crybitches you've always been.
Poor Linux babies can't stand that other people don't see the "obvious" superiority of their personal choice.
Wah wah wah muthafucka.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824499</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256145180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right?  The BIOS.  SOMETHING has to load the MBR from disk and execute it.</p></div><p>Never used <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible\_Firmware\_Interface" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">EFI</a> [wikipedia.org] before?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right ?
The BIOS .
SOMETHING has to load the MBR from disk and execute it.Never used EFI [ wikipedia.org ] before ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right?
The BIOS.
SOMETHING has to load the MBR from disk and execute it.Never used EFI [wikipedia.org] before?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831585</id>
	<title>As Technet subscriber my views</title>
	<author>freedom\_india</author>
	<datestamp>1256142240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ahhh iam a Technet subscriber.<br>I have been running the Windows 7 RTM 64-bit edition on my AMD.<br>Here's what i have to say:<br>1) You need the AMD dual core optimizer to ensure Windows 7 uses both cores fully, especially in games. Microsoft can say it is not needed. But from practical point i saw it was needed. Before AMD DCO the boot time to GUI was 28 seconds. After AMD DCO it came down to 19 seconds. Figure it out.<br>2) On my 4GB DDR2 RAM system, its wicked fast. Primary drive was IDE, switched to SATA and i would say it became faster. With IDE the boot time was 33 seconds.<br>2) The UAC is tamed. Yes it is.<br>3) Instead of readyBoost, i use eBooStr with 256MB RAM and a flash drive cache of 1GB. Kinda works well, i would say.<br>4) nVidia drivers actually are faster than same joke of Vista.<br>5) Self-tuning is evident. I have seen Windows 7 cache slowly accommodate and tune itself over boot ups.<br>6) The annoying reboot dialog after updates is gone. You can disable it or ask it to prompt you after one or 4 hours.<br>7) Games run Slowly with DirectX 11. Company of heroes launches slowly has a slower frame rate but consumes less memory. I switched to DirectX 9 and even though launch is still slow, it runs faster.<br>8) Brutally efficient memory management. I disabled 2Gb and launched Win7 with just 2GB. Its boot time was slightly up, but programs still ran faster and snappy. Of course it disabled some funky Aero UI.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ahhh iam a Technet subscriber.I have been running the Windows 7 RTM 64-bit edition on my AMD.Here 's what i have to say : 1 ) You need the AMD dual core optimizer to ensure Windows 7 uses both cores fully , especially in games .
Microsoft can say it is not needed .
But from practical point i saw it was needed .
Before AMD DCO the boot time to GUI was 28 seconds .
After AMD DCO it came down to 19 seconds .
Figure it out.2 ) On my 4GB DDR2 RAM system , its wicked fast .
Primary drive was IDE , switched to SATA and i would say it became faster .
With IDE the boot time was 33 seconds.2 ) The UAC is tamed .
Yes it is.3 ) Instead of readyBoost , i use eBooStr with 256MB RAM and a flash drive cache of 1GB .
Kinda works well , i would say.4 ) nVidia drivers actually are faster than same joke of Vista.5 ) Self-tuning is evident .
I have seen Windows 7 cache slowly accommodate and tune itself over boot ups.6 ) The annoying reboot dialog after updates is gone .
You can disable it or ask it to prompt you after one or 4 hours.7 ) Games run Slowly with DirectX 11 .
Company of heroes launches slowly has a slower frame rate but consumes less memory .
I switched to DirectX 9 and even though launch is still slow , it runs faster.8 ) Brutally efficient memory management .
I disabled 2Gb and launched Win7 with just 2GB .
Its boot time was slightly up , but programs still ran faster and snappy .
Of course it disabled some funky Aero UI .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ahhh iam a Technet subscriber.I have been running the Windows 7 RTM 64-bit edition on my AMD.Here's what i have to say:1) You need the AMD dual core optimizer to ensure Windows 7 uses both cores fully, especially in games.
Microsoft can say it is not needed.
But from practical point i saw it was needed.
Before AMD DCO the boot time to GUI was 28 seconds.
After AMD DCO it came down to 19 seconds.
Figure it out.2) On my 4GB DDR2 RAM system, its wicked fast.
Primary drive was IDE, switched to SATA and i would say it became faster.
With IDE the boot time was 33 seconds.2) The UAC is tamed.
Yes it is.3) Instead of readyBoost, i use eBooStr with 256MB RAM and a flash drive cache of 1GB.
Kinda works well, i would say.4) nVidia drivers actually are faster than same joke of Vista.5) Self-tuning is evident.
I have seen Windows 7 cache slowly accommodate and tune itself over boot ups.6) The annoying reboot dialog after updates is gone.
You can disable it or ask it to prompt you after one or 4 hours.7) Games run Slowly with DirectX 11.
Company of heroes launches slowly has a slower frame rate but consumes less memory.
I switched to DirectX 9 and even though launch is still slow, it runs faster.8) Brutally efficient memory management.
I disabled 2Gb and launched Win7 with just 2GB.
Its boot time was slightly up, but programs still ran faster and snappy.
Of course it disabled some funky Aero UI.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823687</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29833593</id>
	<title>Someone has to say it...</title>
	<author>Puppet Master</author>
	<datestamp>1256215020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>from the where-do-i-buy-a-256-core-netbook dept.</i>
<p>
In the near future, we'll hear Steve Balmer say "256-core should be enough for anyone"

</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>from the where-do-i-buy-a-256-core-netbook dept .
In the near future , we 'll hear Steve Balmer say " 256-core should be enough for anyone "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>from the where-do-i-buy-a-256-core-netbook dept.
In the near future, we'll hear Steve Balmer say "256-core should be enough for anyone"

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823341</id>
	<title>Re:Windows kernel still had global locks then? Wow</title>
	<author>0ld\_d0g</author>
	<datestamp>1256139540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you're probably thinking of is patch for the Big Kernel Lock(BKL) in Linux which basically was the origin of SMP scaling in Linux. This article is talking about the kernel dispatcher lock in NT. Two separate things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you 're probably thinking of is patch for the Big Kernel Lock ( BKL ) in Linux which basically was the origin of SMP scaling in Linux .
This article is talking about the kernel dispatcher lock in NT .
Two separate things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you're probably thinking of is patch for the Big Kernel Lock(BKL) in Linux which basically was the origin of SMP scaling in Linux.
This article is talking about the kernel dispatcher lock in NT.
Two separate things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29834895</id>
	<title>Re:Not all code can be done in parallel</title>
	<author>Have Brain Will Rent</author>
	<datestamp>1256225100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Parallelism has been around for over 20 years now, not to mention the related discipline of distributed computing. </i> </p><p> Quite a bit more than 20 years. If you're going to be snotty then be accurate as well.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Parallelism has been around for over 20 years now , not to mention the related discipline of distributed computing .
Quite a bit more than 20 years .
If you 're going to be snotty then be accurate as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Parallelism has been around for over 20 years now, not to mention the related discipline of distributed computing.
Quite a bit more than 20 years.
If you're going to be snotty then be accurate as well.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256148000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I always find the Linux vs Windows debate so comical.  Windows is a desktop OS trying to be a server, and Linux is a server OS trying to be a desktop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I always find the Linux vs Windows debate so comical .
Windows is a desktop OS trying to be a server , and Linux is a server OS trying to be a desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I always find the Linux vs Windows debate so comical.
Windows is a desktop OS trying to be a server, and Linux is a server OS trying to be a desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822891</id>
	<title>Did we really expect different?</title>
	<author>jkrise</author>
	<datestamp>1256137260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Windows 7 is nothing but Refurbished Vista.. which was XP with lots of bloat and less of new features. The only reason Windows 7 is being released is for  MS to make a revenue stream for nothing. It is not much different from XP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 is nothing but Refurbished Vista.. which was XP with lots of bloat and less of new features .
The only reason Windows 7 is being released is for MS to make a revenue stream for nothing .
It is not much different from XP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 is nothing but Refurbished Vista.. which was XP with lots of bloat and less of new features.
The only reason Windows 7 is being released is for  MS to make a revenue stream for nothing.
It is not much different from XP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824451</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256144940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>doesn't win7 support EFI?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>does n't win7 support EFI ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>doesn't win7 support EFI?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823847</id>
	<title>Re:Windows version - 7 *ULTIMATE*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256142180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only difference between Ultimate and Home Premium and Basic, is features. Aero and other non-essential features that do not affect the kernel of the OS.</p><p>Ultimate runs more processes on startup, along with the same that run with Basic and Home Premium. So if anything can be assumed it is that Ultimate will run slower or at least as fast as the others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only difference between Ultimate and Home Premium and Basic , is features .
Aero and other non-essential features that do not affect the kernel of the OS.Ultimate runs more processes on startup , along with the same that run with Basic and Home Premium .
So if anything can be assumed it is that Ultimate will run slower or at least as fast as the others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only difference between Ultimate and Home Premium and Basic, is features.
Aero and other non-essential features that do not affect the kernel of the OS.Ultimate runs more processes on startup, along with the same that run with Basic and Home Premium.
So if anything can be assumed it is that Ultimate will run slower or at least as fast as the others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825015</id>
	<title>Re:Wadaya want, chopped liver?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256147520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Canonical sure has made major strides with Ubuntu in this regard.  8.10 &gt; 9.04 &gt; 9.10 have all had major underlying speed and interface latency improvements.  I don't know what it is they are doing but, it is definitely working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Canonical sure has made major strides with Ubuntu in this regard .
8.10 &gt; 9.04 &gt; 9.10 have all had major underlying speed and interface latency improvements .
I do n't know what it is they are doing but , it is definitely working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Canonical sure has made major strides with Ubuntu in this regard.
8.10 &gt; 9.04 &gt; 9.10 have all had major underlying speed and interface latency improvements.
I don't know what it is they are doing but, it is definitely working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823003</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824825</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256146740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you consider poor memory management, slow performance and blue screening better then okay, have fun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you consider poor memory management , slow performance and blue screening better then okay , have fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you consider poor memory management, slow performance and blue screening better then okay, have fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29830683</id>
	<title>Grand Central</title>
	<author>sunfly</author>
	<datestamp>1256132040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How does it compare to Grand Central Dispatch?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How does it compare to Grand Central Dispatch ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does it compare to Grand Central Dispatch?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823665</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Kijori</author>
	<datestamp>1256141100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>You don't even need to *have* a BIOS to run Win7.</p></div></blockquote><p>Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right? </p></div><p>That would be a firmware interface. BIOS is one example of a firmware interface - and is the defacto standard on a PC - but it isn't the only one. You can indeed run all recent versions of Windows without a BIOS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't even need to * have * a BIOS to run Win7.Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right ?
That would be a firmware interface .
BIOS is one example of a firmware interface - and is the defacto standard on a PC - but it is n't the only one .
You can indeed run all recent versions of Windows without a BIOS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't even need to *have* a BIOS to run Win7.Err... you DO know what first takes control of the computer when you turn it on right?
That would be a firmware interface.
BIOS is one example of a firmware interface - and is the defacto standard on a PC - but it isn't the only one.
You can indeed run all recent versions of Windows without a BIOS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825515</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would politely point out that it is a nice thing for the environment if Windows 7 can save 17\% on power costs.  Unfortunately, if one doesn't realize any tangible speed increases, then those scant power savings will be bought most dearly (from your wallet) for the price of the newer OS.  The bottom line would seem to be that if you have an older, working system, then there is (again) no point to this upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would politely point out that it is a nice thing for the environment if Windows 7 can save 17 \ % on power costs .
Unfortunately , if one does n't realize any tangible speed increases , then those scant power savings will be bought most dearly ( from your wallet ) for the price of the newer OS .
The bottom line would seem to be that if you have an older , working system , then there is ( again ) no point to this upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would politely point out that it is a nice thing for the environment if Windows 7 can save 17\% on power costs.
Unfortunately, if one doesn't realize any tangible speed increases, then those scant power savings will be bought most dearly (from your wallet) for the price of the newer OS.
The bottom line would seem to be that if you have an older, working system, then there is (again) no point to this upgrade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823391</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>DdJ</author>
	<datestamp>1256139840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that isn't a Microsoft problem at all, since they didn't write the drivers. Contact Abit for support.</p></div><p>If we take this as true, it's an example of why <em>for some people</em>, paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense.  You give up the freedom <em>to do</em> all sorts of things (like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example), but you gain freedom <em>from</em> a lot of problems of this sort.</p><p>(Just trying to plant this in the heads of the countless people who argue there's literally no rational reason to buy a Mac, and only fanboys would even consider it.  You won't see me argue that there's no such thing as an Apple fanboy, but I <em>will</em> argue that the fanboy phenomenon is not <em>all there is</em> to Apple's sales.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that is n't a Microsoft problem at all , since they did n't write the drivers .
Contact Abit for support.If we take this as true , it 's an example of why for some people , paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense .
You give up the freedom to do all sorts of things ( like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example ) , but you gain freedom from a lot of problems of this sort .
( Just trying to plant this in the heads of the countless people who argue there 's literally no rational reason to buy a Mac , and only fanboys would even consider it .
You wo n't see me argue that there 's no such thing as an Apple fanboy , but I will argue that the fanboy phenomenon is not all there is to Apple 's sales .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that isn't a Microsoft problem at all, since they didn't write the drivers.
Contact Abit for support.If we take this as true, it's an example of why for some people, paying a premium for a Macintosh is worth the cost and can make sense.
You give up the freedom to do all sorts of things (like get a machine with specs perfectly suited to specialized needs for example), but you gain freedom from a lot of problems of this sort.
(Just trying to plant this in the heads of the countless people who argue there's literally no rational reason to buy a Mac, and only fanboys would even consider it.
You won't see me argue that there's no such thing as an Apple fanboy, but I will argue that the fanboy phenomenon is not all there is to Apple's sales.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823547</id>
	<title>Re:Not all code can be done in parallel</title>
	<author>DannyO152</author>
	<datestamp>1256140560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And who wants to spend money looking at decades old code in order to make explicit implicit blocks, or dare to risk breakage by tweaking the code to be concurrency amenable?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And who wants to spend money looking at decades old code in order to make explicit implicit blocks , or dare to risk breakage by tweaking the code to be concurrency amenable ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And who wants to spend money looking at decades old code in order to make explicit implicit blocks, or dare to risk breakage by tweaking the code to be concurrency amenable?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825645</id>
	<title>Re:Less power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256149980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That IS, in fact, the PROPER pronunciation.</p><p>Robot?  ROWbut.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That IS , in fact , the PROPER pronunciation.Robot ?
ROWbut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That IS, in fact, the PROPER pronunciation.Robot?
ROWbut.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823167</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823191</id>
	<title>Does it really matter? Not for me.</title>
	<author>kurt555gs</author>
	<datestamp>1256138760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way I would run Windows (anything) would be inside of VirtualBox on either a Mac or Ubuntu box. Given this scenario, how much would improved multi-threading matter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way I would run Windows ( anything ) would be inside of VirtualBox on either a Mac or Ubuntu box .
Given this scenario , how much would improved multi-threading matter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way I would run Windows (anything) would be inside of VirtualBox on either a Mac or Ubuntu box.
Given this scenario, how much would improved multi-threading matter?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947</id>
	<title>Windows kernel still had global locks then? Wow..</title>
	<author>Idaho</author>
	<datestamp>1256137500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resources</p></div></blockquote><p>So, you're telling me that before Windows 7, the Windows kernel was still using global locks for this kind of purpose? Seriously?</p><p>I may be slightly mistaken about the timeframe, but wasn't that kind of thing fixed in the Linux kernel, like, at least 5-10 years ago? I remember reading some LWN articles about it ages ago, at least.</p><p>If so, I had no idea Windows development was *that* far behind the times, from a technological perspective.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resourcesSo , you 're telling me that before Windows 7 , the Windows kernel was still using global locks for this kind of purpose ?
Seriously ? I may be slightly mistaken about the timeframe , but was n't that kind of thing fixed in the Linux kernel , like , at least 5-10 years ago ?
I remember reading some LWN articles about it ages ago , at least.If so , I had no idea Windows development was * that * far behind the times , from a technological perspective .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a wholly new mechanism that gets rid of the global locking concept and pushes the management of lock access down to the locked resourcesSo, you're telling me that before Windows 7, the Windows kernel was still using global locks for this kind of purpose?
Seriously?I may be slightly mistaken about the timeframe, but wasn't that kind of thing fixed in the Linux kernel, like, at least 5-10 years ago?
I remember reading some LWN articles about it ages ago, at least.If so, I had no idea Windows development was *that* far behind the times, from a technological perspective.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822747</id>
	<title>Is this really that surprising?</title>
	<author>bsDaemon</author>
	<datestamp>1256136540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is this really that surprising?  I mean, splitting threads over different cores, having two cores still isn't going to be that much faster than one.  I wouldn't expect to see much a gain just from this any more than I would on Linux or BSD.  Still, every little bit helps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is this really that surprising ?
I mean , splitting threads over different cores , having two cores still is n't going to be that much faster than one .
I would n't expect to see much a gain just from this any more than I would on Linux or BSD .
Still , every little bit helps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is this really that surprising?
I mean, splitting threads over different cores, having two cores still isn't going to be that much faster than one.
I wouldn't expect to see much a gain just from this any more than I would on Linux or BSD.
Still, every little bit helps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824535</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256145300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*cough* ACPI *cough*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* cough * ACPI * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*cough* ACPI *cough*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256137380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Windows 7 (like all modern versions of Windows) does nothing with the BIOS at all - the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting. You don't even need to *have* a BIOS to run Win7. And, if a power cycle fixes the issue, it clearly is <i>not</i> a BIOS problem.
<br> <br>
If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that isn't a Microsoft problem at all, since they didn't write the drivers. Contact Abit for support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Windows 7 ( like all modern versions of Windows ) does nothing with the BIOS at all - the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting .
You do n't even need to * have * a BIOS to run Win7 .
And , if a power cycle fixes the issue , it clearly is not a BIOS problem .
If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that is n't a Microsoft problem at all , since they did n't write the drivers .
Contact Abit for support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Windows 7 (like all modern versions of Windows) does nothing with the BIOS at all - the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting.
You don't even need to *have* a BIOS to run Win7.
And, if a power cycle fixes the issue, it clearly is not a BIOS problem.
If the device drivers for your motherboard have a bug - which sounds more like the cause of your issue - then that isn't a Microsoft problem at all, since they didn't write the drivers.
Contact Abit for support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823003</id>
	<title>Wadaya want, chopped liver?</title>
	<author>TheSHAD0W</author>
	<datestamp>1256137740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...permitting Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty, but delivering little performance gains for systems with only a few processors...</i></p><p>So you're disappointed Microsoft doesn't magically speed up your single or dual-core PC?  Maybe you're expecting too much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...permitting Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty , but delivering little performance gains for systems with only a few processors...So you 're disappointed Microsoft does n't magically speed up your single or dual-core PC ?
Maybe you 're expecting too much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...permitting Windows 7 to scale up to 256 processors without performance penalty, but delivering little performance gains for systems with only a few processors...So you're disappointed Microsoft doesn't magically speed up your single or dual-core PC?
Maybe you're expecting too much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826115</id>
	<title>Re:Windows version - 7 *ULTIMATE*</title>
	<author>RudeIota</author>
	<datestamp>1256151720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Although the GP may not realize that they use the same kernels (Even if there are some artificial limitations for lesser versions), I think it is fair to accept the very idea of using XP/Vista *Home* signifies Infoworld's failure to produce a meaningful analysis. <br> <br>However, Infoworld <b>did</b> in fact use XP Professional and Vista Ultimate, so there isn't much of a discussion to be had.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-(</htmltext>
<tokenext>Although the GP may not realize that they use the same kernels ( Even if there are some artificial limitations for lesser versions ) , I think it is fair to accept the very idea of using XP/Vista * Home * signifies Infoworld 's failure to produce a meaningful analysis .
However , Infoworld did in fact use XP Professional and Vista Ultimate , so there is n't much of a discussion to be had .
: - (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Although the GP may not realize that they use the same kernels (Even if there are some artificial limitations for lesser versions), I think it is fair to accept the very idea of using XP/Vista *Home* signifies Infoworld's failure to produce a meaningful analysis.
However, Infoworld did in fact use XP Professional and Vista Ultimate, so there isn't much of a discussion to be had.
:-(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29828573</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>x2A</author>
	<datestamp>1256118780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar story here, but am on 2003 32bit (as cpu is 32bit), prefer the shell to XP as it's a lot less hand holdy... although Vista takes being parental to the next level (are you sure you wanted to do that? Definitely? Oo tell you what, I'll even remove the scrollbar that used to be at the bottom of this window, and scroll for you! Surely I know better than you what you want to look at)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar story here , but am on 2003 32bit ( as cpu is 32bit ) , prefer the shell to XP as it 's a lot less hand holdy... although Vista takes being parental to the next level ( are you sure you wanted to do that ?
Definitely ? Oo tell you what , I 'll even remove the scrollbar that used to be at the bottom of this window , and scroll for you !
Surely I know better than you what you want to look at ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar story here, but am on 2003 32bit (as cpu is 32bit), prefer the shell to XP as it's a lot less hand holdy... although Vista takes being parental to the next level (are you sure you wanted to do that?
Definitely? Oo tell you what, I'll even remove the scrollbar that used to be at the bottom of this window, and scroll for you!
Surely I know better than you what you want to look at)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823789</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>DigiShaman</author>
	<datestamp>1256141820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike Windows (or any OS), it's the BIOS that sets CPU and RAM timing. It also lets the CPU load microcode at POST. Windows has and never will have such low-level hardware control.</p><p>And yes. I've seen Windows power management mung up CMOS settings. However, that's a BIOS coding issue for letting it happen in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike Windows ( or any OS ) , it 's the BIOS that sets CPU and RAM timing .
It also lets the CPU load microcode at POST .
Windows has and never will have such low-level hardware control.And yes .
I 've seen Windows power management mung up CMOS settings .
However , that 's a BIOS coding issue for letting it happen in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike Windows (or any OS), it's the BIOS that sets CPU and RAM timing.
It also lets the CPU load microcode at POST.
Windows has and never will have such low-level hardware control.And yes.
I've seen Windows power management mung up CMOS settings.
However, that's a BIOS coding issue for letting it happen in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825425</id>
	<title>Re:Not Really</title>
	<author>Ephemeriis</author>
	<datestamp>1256149200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Im not surprised. I think we're going to find that as people start taking Win7 apart that its not too much different from Vista because Vista itself was pretty efficient to begin with. The Vista bashing was really unjustified and after you got over issues like old drivers, old hardware, and pre-SP1 UAC, you pretty much have Win7.</p></div><p>Vista had <i>issues</i>, no matter how you look at it.</p><p>The lead-up to Vista was just plain stupid.  Microsoft was advertising it like the second coming.  It's a freaking OS!  If you do it right, people don't even notice the OS because it gets out of their way and lets them do their work.  With Vista, Microsoft seemed to forget that their job wasn't to produce the single flashiest piece of software on the computer, but rather to make that computer run all the other software better.</p><p>The GUI was an improvement over XP - I never did like XP's Fisher Price colors.  But that's really about it.</p><p>The driver update was probably necessary, especially with everything moving towards 64-bit finally, but it was handled poorly.  I don't think Microsoft pushed hardware manufacturers hard enough.  And they didn't do enough to accommodate old hardware.  The rend result was a lot of broken hardware that just plain was not going to work.</p><p>The same thing happened with software.  Microsoft really didn't push developers to fix their code, and didn't do much to accommodate old code, so you wound up with a bunch of broken code.</p><p>UAC was a joke.  Yes, it got better.  And in Win7 it is genuinely useful.  But UAC, as it was at Vista launch, was a joke.</p><p>Then you had all the new DRM-y stuff bolted on to the OS, slowing things down.  Remember the file copy/NIC/sound playback issues?</p><p>And the "Vista Capable" stickers...  That was fun.  Advertising computers as being able to run software that they couldn't actually run - good idea!</p><p>It may very well be that Win7 is simply Vista done right...  But that simply means that Vista was done wrong in the first place, and Win7 is what they should have released a couple years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Im not surprised .
I think we 're going to find that as people start taking Win7 apart that its not too much different from Vista because Vista itself was pretty efficient to begin with .
The Vista bashing was really unjustified and after you got over issues like old drivers , old hardware , and pre-SP1 UAC , you pretty much have Win7.Vista had issues , no matter how you look at it.The lead-up to Vista was just plain stupid .
Microsoft was advertising it like the second coming .
It 's a freaking OS !
If you do it right , people do n't even notice the OS because it gets out of their way and lets them do their work .
With Vista , Microsoft seemed to forget that their job was n't to produce the single flashiest piece of software on the computer , but rather to make that computer run all the other software better.The GUI was an improvement over XP - I never did like XP 's Fisher Price colors .
But that 's really about it.The driver update was probably necessary , especially with everything moving towards 64-bit finally , but it was handled poorly .
I do n't think Microsoft pushed hardware manufacturers hard enough .
And they did n't do enough to accommodate old hardware .
The rend result was a lot of broken hardware that just plain was not going to work.The same thing happened with software .
Microsoft really did n't push developers to fix their code , and did n't do much to accommodate old code , so you wound up with a bunch of broken code.UAC was a joke .
Yes , it got better .
And in Win7 it is genuinely useful .
But UAC , as it was at Vista launch , was a joke.Then you had all the new DRM-y stuff bolted on to the OS , slowing things down .
Remember the file copy/NIC/sound playback issues ? And the " Vista Capable " stickers... That was fun .
Advertising computers as being able to run software that they could n't actually run - good idea ! It may very well be that Win7 is simply Vista done right... But that simply means that Vista was done wrong in the first place , and Win7 is what they should have released a couple years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im not surprised.
I think we're going to find that as people start taking Win7 apart that its not too much different from Vista because Vista itself was pretty efficient to begin with.
The Vista bashing was really unjustified and after you got over issues like old drivers, old hardware, and pre-SP1 UAC, you pretty much have Win7.Vista had issues, no matter how you look at it.The lead-up to Vista was just plain stupid.
Microsoft was advertising it like the second coming.
It's a freaking OS!
If you do it right, people don't even notice the OS because it gets out of their way and lets them do their work.
With Vista, Microsoft seemed to forget that their job wasn't to produce the single flashiest piece of software on the computer, but rather to make that computer run all the other software better.The GUI was an improvement over XP - I never did like XP's Fisher Price colors.
But that's really about it.The driver update was probably necessary, especially with everything moving towards 64-bit finally, but it was handled poorly.
I don't think Microsoft pushed hardware manufacturers hard enough.
And they didn't do enough to accommodate old hardware.
The rend result was a lot of broken hardware that just plain was not going to work.The same thing happened with software.
Microsoft really didn't push developers to fix their code, and didn't do much to accommodate old code, so you wound up with a bunch of broken code.UAC was a joke.
Yes, it got better.
And in Win7 it is genuinely useful.
But UAC, as it was at Vista launch, was a joke.Then you had all the new DRM-y stuff bolted on to the OS, slowing things down.
Remember the file copy/NIC/sound playback issues?And the "Vista Capable" stickers...  That was fun.
Advertising computers as being able to run software that they couldn't actually run - good idea!It may very well be that Win7 is simply Vista done right...  But that simply means that Vista was done wrong in the first place, and Win7 is what they should have released a couple years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822997</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827557</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1256157780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My experience has been that Windows is a desktop OS trying to be a desktop OS.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My experience has been that Windows is a desktop OS trying to be a desktop OS .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My experience has been that Windows is a desktop OS trying to be a desktop OS.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823687</id>
	<title>I must not be reading that chart right</title>
	<author>HangingChad</author>
	<datestamp>1256141160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I'm reading the chart correctly, it appears that Vista rivals Windows 7 in all benchmarks and even beats it in a couple.

</p><p>Ru-roh, Shaggy.  That's not good.  I thought Windows 7 was supposed to be the Vista Apology version?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I 'm reading the chart correctly , it appears that Vista rivals Windows 7 in all benchmarks and even beats it in a couple .
Ru-roh , Shaggy .
That 's not good .
I thought Windows 7 was supposed to be the Vista Apology version ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I'm reading the chart correctly, it appears that Vista rivals Windows 7 in all benchmarks and even beats it in a couple.
Ru-roh, Shaggy.
That's not good.
I thought Windows 7 was supposed to be the Vista Apology version?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831827</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1256145180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's patently false.  The NT kernel was not written as a "desktop OS".  Just because it leverages a gui, doesn't mean it was built as a "desktop OS".  In 2009, has *nix caught up with windows fine grained access controls without third party utilities?  read/write/execute can't touch Windows NT ACL's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's patently false .
The NT kernel was not written as a " desktop OS " .
Just because it leverages a gui , does n't mean it was built as a " desktop OS " .
In 2009 , has * nix caught up with windows fine grained access controls without third party utilities ?
read/write/execute ca n't touch Windows NT ACL 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's patently false.
The NT kernel was not written as a "desktop OS".
Just because it leverages a gui, doesn't mean it was built as a "desktop OS".
In 2009, has *nix caught up with windows fine grained access controls without third party utilities?
read/write/execute can't touch Windows NT ACL's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823045</id>
	<title>Re:Did we really expect different?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256138040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't Windows 7 some kind of holiday retro version meant to bridge the gap between 3.1 and 95? I'll stick with the highest version number, Windows 2000, thank you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't Windows 7 some kind of holiday retro version meant to bridge the gap between 3.1 and 95 ?
I 'll stick with the highest version number , Windows 2000 , thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't Windows 7 some kind of holiday retro version meant to bridge the gap between 3.1 and 95?
I'll stick with the highest version number, Windows 2000, thank you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825113</id>
	<title>Windows 7 on Medicare</title>
	<author>linebackn</author>
	<datestamp>1256147880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For a moment there I read that headline as "Windows 7 on Medicare". I know Windows is getting old, but I didn't think it was quite there yet!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For a moment there I read that headline as " Windows 7 on Medicare " .
I know Windows is getting old , but I did n't think it was quite there yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For a moment there I read that headline as "Windows 7 on Medicare".
I know Windows is getting old, but I didn't think it was quite there yet!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827485</id>
	<title>Re:Less power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256157540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"640W ought to be enough for everyone"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" 640W ought to be enough for everyone "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"640W ought to be enough for everyone"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827865</id>
	<title>Re:Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>fat\_mike</author>
	<datestamp>1256115900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have that exact same board.  I also have secondary temperature sensor in one of my drive bays.  Both Windows 7 and the secondary sensor report the same temp.

By the way, while I'm posting this I have X-Plane 9 at 1920x1200 at 32 bit color with everything set to extremely insane running in a window behind Firefox with no stuttering.

I also have Adobe Premiere rendering 3D menus for a DVD I'm making.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have that exact same board .
I also have secondary temperature sensor in one of my drive bays .
Both Windows 7 and the secondary sensor report the same temp .
By the way , while I 'm posting this I have X-Plane 9 at 1920x1200 at 32 bit color with everything set to extremely insane running in a window behind Firefox with no stuttering .
I also have Adobe Premiere rendering 3D menus for a DVD I 'm making .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have that exact same board.
I also have secondary temperature sensor in one of my drive bays.
Both Windows 7 and the secondary sensor report the same temp.
By the way, while I'm posting this I have X-Plane 9 at 1920x1200 at 32 bit color with everything set to extremely insane running in a window behind Firefox with no stuttering.
I also have Adobe Premiere rendering 3D menus for a DVD I'm making.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29837187</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256235180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>--You should have trolled the registry and the lack of a competent equivalent to package managers.</p></div></blockquote><p>Right, because the registry is vastly different than<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc, and Windows hasn't had a package manager for the last 13 years<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>The registry provides a consistent API that every app can work with for storing configuration information.  Apps aren't required to use it.  Proper apps can work with and without touching it.  Your complaint here is one of bad developers writing apps that use the registry, not the registry itself.  Attacking the registry itself is about the same as attacking libxml because people use it to write out config files.</p><p>The windows package manage does not included a 'get from the internet' button, but if they did, it would just turn into another rally cry for people screaming monopoly and other such retarded things.  It does however have no problem managing dependancies and updates.  Of course, doing so requires that developers actually use the  system properly, which no one does<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... except Microsoft, which is why they have a nice update system which other OSes have more or less copied.</p><p>Bitch about windows all you want, but if your points revolve around the registry and package manager, just go home, you don't know what you're talking about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>--You should have trolled the registry and the lack of a competent equivalent to package managers.Right , because the registry is vastly different than /etc , and Windows has n't had a package manager for the last 13 years ...The registry provides a consistent API that every app can work with for storing configuration information .
Apps are n't required to use it .
Proper apps can work with and without touching it .
Your complaint here is one of bad developers writing apps that use the registry , not the registry itself .
Attacking the registry itself is about the same as attacking libxml because people use it to write out config files.The windows package manage does not included a 'get from the internet ' button , but if they did , it would just turn into another rally cry for people screaming monopoly and other such retarded things .
It does however have no problem managing dependancies and updates .
Of course , doing so requires that developers actually use the system properly , which no one does ... except Microsoft , which is why they have a nice update system which other OSes have more or less copied.Bitch about windows all you want , but if your points revolve around the registry and package manager , just go home , you do n't know what you 're talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>--You should have trolled the registry and the lack of a competent equivalent to package managers.Right, because the registry is vastly different than /etc, and Windows hasn't had a package manager for the last 13 years ...The registry provides a consistent API that every app can work with for storing configuration information.
Apps aren't required to use it.
Proper apps can work with and without touching it.
Your complaint here is one of bad developers writing apps that use the registry, not the registry itself.
Attacking the registry itself is about the same as attacking libxml because people use it to write out config files.The windows package manage does not included a 'get from the internet' button, but if they did, it would just turn into another rally cry for people screaming monopoly and other such retarded things.
It does however have no problem managing dependancies and updates.
Of course, doing so requires that developers actually use the  system properly, which no one does ... except Microsoft, which is why they have a nice update system which other OSes have more or less copied.Bitch about windows all you want, but if your points revolve around the registry and package manager, just go home, you don't know what you're talking about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825605</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823649</id>
	<title>Re:Windows version - 7 *ULTIMATE*</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256141040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Ultimate come with a different kernel to Home?  I was under the impression that the only differences between the versions were at the userland level.  It's not like the older WinNT releases that actually did have slightly different kernels.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Ultimate come with a different kernel to Home ?
I was under the impression that the only differences between the versions were at the userland level .
It 's not like the older WinNT releases that actually did have slightly different kernels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Ultimate come with a different kernel to Home?
I was under the impression that the only differences between the versions were at the userland level.
It's not like the older WinNT releases that actually did have slightly different kernels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</id>
	<title>Less power?</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1256136240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nooo! I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase! Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nooo !
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase !
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nooo!
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase!
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824443</id>
	<title>Re:Most interesting part uncommented...</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1256144880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Vista's perceived sluggishness is probably attributable to inefficient coding practice rather than the raw speed of the underlying OS. For example, people complain about the time it takes to copy files over the network with Vista which should have little to do with the CPU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vista 's perceived sluggishness is probably attributable to inefficient coding practice rather than the raw speed of the underlying OS .
For example , people complain about the time it takes to copy files over the network with Vista which should have little to do with the CPU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vista's perceived sluggishness is probably attributable to inefficient coding practice rather than the raw speed of the underlying OS.
For example, people complain about the time it takes to copy files over the network with Vista which should have little to do with the CPU.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29844659</id>
	<title>Re:Most interesting part uncommented...</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1256304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's because they only time the task itself from start to finish.  If they timed the amount of time it took the researchers to copy the test files to the machine from the network and to click around from task to task, XP would win by a landslide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's because they only time the task itself from start to finish .
If they timed the amount of time it took the researchers to copy the test files to the machine from the network and to click around from task to task , XP would win by a landslide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's because they only time the task itself from start to finish.
If they timed the amount of time it took the researchers to copy the test files to the machine from the network and to click around from task to task, XP would win by a landslide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823639</id>
	<title>Re:Windows 7 is better than Linux</title>
	<author>strangemachinex</author>
	<datestamp>1256140980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm the type of guy that hates change. I used Windows 2000 until '06 when my copy finally quit working due to numerous re-installs (I hated solving problems and would just format whenever something came up). I learned to love XP and used it until about a month ago when I got a x64 system. I was gonna switch to XP64, but heard the driver support was terrible, especially for gaming. I read one x64 comparison between XP, Vista, and Windows 7 and the reviewers couldn't even get XP 64 stable enough to complete the test. But anyway, if your using it for business I guess that's not a big deal for you.

I've been using Windows 7 a couple of months now, and have to say I really like it. It's a little more nannyish than XP, but it looks cool, and does streamline alot of things. I have 4 monitors connected to my PC, and getting them all to work in XP took hours. To my surprise, all 4 sprang to life halfway through the installation of Windows 7. I've never used Vista, but I haven't had any problems when streaming videos or music. I stream movies to other PCs and music to my iphone all the time with no problems.

In my opinion, if XP64 is working for you, stick with it, but Windows 7 is cool to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm the type of guy that hates change .
I used Windows 2000 until '06 when my copy finally quit working due to numerous re-installs ( I hated solving problems and would just format whenever something came up ) .
I learned to love XP and used it until about a month ago when I got a x64 system .
I was gon na switch to XP64 , but heard the driver support was terrible , especially for gaming .
I read one x64 comparison between XP , Vista , and Windows 7 and the reviewers could n't even get XP 64 stable enough to complete the test .
But anyway , if your using it for business I guess that 's not a big deal for you .
I 've been using Windows 7 a couple of months now , and have to say I really like it .
It 's a little more nannyish than XP , but it looks cool , and does streamline alot of things .
I have 4 monitors connected to my PC , and getting them all to work in XP took hours .
To my surprise , all 4 sprang to life halfway through the installation of Windows 7 .
I 've never used Vista , but I have n't had any problems when streaming videos or music .
I stream movies to other PCs and music to my iphone all the time with no problems .
In my opinion , if XP64 is working for you , stick with it , but Windows 7 is cool to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm the type of guy that hates change.
I used Windows 2000 until '06 when my copy finally quit working due to numerous re-installs (I hated solving problems and would just format whenever something came up).
I learned to love XP and used it until about a month ago when I got a x64 system.
I was gonna switch to XP64, but heard the driver support was terrible, especially for gaming.
I read one x64 comparison between XP, Vista, and Windows 7 and the reviewers couldn't even get XP 64 stable enough to complete the test.
But anyway, if your using it for business I guess that's not a big deal for you.
I've been using Windows 7 a couple of months now, and have to say I really like it.
It's a little more nannyish than XP, but it looks cool, and does streamline alot of things.
I have 4 monitors connected to my PC, and getting them all to work in XP took hours.
To my surprise, all 4 sprang to life halfway through the installation of Windows 7.
I've never used Vista, but I haven't had any problems when streaming videos or music.
I stream movies to other PCs and music to my iphone all the time with no problems.
In my opinion, if XP64 is working for you, stick with it, but Windows 7 is cool to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832391</id>
	<title>Not ENTIRELY true: You've overlooked "ACPI"... apk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256154000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><div class="quote"><p><b>"Windows 7 (like all modern versions of Windows) does nothing with the BIOS at all - the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting."</b> -  by sunderland56 (621843)  on Wednesday October 21, @10:03AM (#29822923)</p></div><p>Per my subject-line above? <b>What you've stated, is NOT entirely true:</b></p><p>See, You've overlooked how "ACPI" actually works though - &amp; all it REALLY does, is TELL THE BIOS when to 'power things down', but the BIOS still does the actual work essentially ONLY IT DOESN'T MANAGE/COMMAND IT, itself!</p><p>So, instead of controlling that via the BIOS ONLY?</p><p>An OS that has the ACPI spec built in manages it all, allowing for extremely lower &amp; fine grained power mgt./use control!</p><p>That let's Windows manage it basically, just like a "boss" does @ work, telling the actual workers (BIOS) to do tasks... &amp;, iirc, it needs SMBus functionality.</p><p>ACPI can't be applied to old hardwares either.</p><p>In order for it to do its job, BOTH the OS + the mobo's chipset have to be ready or it, and for some functions even CPU's themselves need to be designed to be compliant for it as well.</p><p>So - YES, the BIOS is still needed &amp; does actual work (when told to do so).</p><p>ACPI replaced the older APM power spec (Win95 onwards up until 1999 (around when Windows 98 came into the picture, right on upwards, iirc),</p><p>Plus, you have to set your BIOS to use it (on modern mobos, like the ASUS P6T I have here powering an Intel I7 Core 920), it's not just telling the BIOS you have a PnP (Plug-N-Play ready OS), but I have to also set ACPI on also.</p><p>In fact, just for your own reference? See this here:</p><p><b>Advanced Configuration &amp; Power Interface (ACPI):</b></p><p><a href="http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/index.htm" title="intel.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/index.htm</a> [intel.com]</p><p>APK</p><p>P.S.=&gt; Probably some "oversimplifying" on my end, but, I'd say it's fairly accurate... but, correct when &amp; where I am off/wrong, IF I am fellas - I can stand correction as much as the next guy can, always learning here, like anyone else (cuz nobody "knows it all")... apk</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Windows 7 ( like all modern versions of Windows ) does nothing with the BIOS at all - the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting .
" - by sunderland56 ( 621843 ) on Wednesday October 21 , @ 10 : 03AM ( # 29822923 ) Per my subject-line above ?
What you 've stated , is NOT entirely true : See , You 've overlooked how " ACPI " actually works though - &amp; all it REALLY does , is TELL THE BIOS when to 'power things down ' , but the BIOS still does the actual work essentially ONLY IT DOES N'T MANAGE/COMMAND IT , itself ! So , instead of controlling that via the BIOS ONLY ? An OS that has the ACPI spec built in manages it all , allowing for extremely lower &amp; fine grained power mgt./use control ! That let 's Windows manage it basically , just like a " boss " does @ work , telling the actual workers ( BIOS ) to do tasks... &amp; , iirc , it needs SMBus functionality.ACPI ca n't be applied to old hardwares either.In order for it to do its job , BOTH the OS + the mobo 's chipset have to be ready or it , and for some functions even CPU 's themselves need to be designed to be compliant for it as well.So - YES , the BIOS is still needed &amp; does actual work ( when told to do so ) .ACPI replaced the older APM power spec ( Win95 onwards up until 1999 ( around when Windows 98 came into the picture , right on upwards , iirc ) ,Plus , you have to set your BIOS to use it ( on modern mobos , like the ASUS P6T I have here powering an Intel I7 Core 920 ) , it 's not just telling the BIOS you have a PnP ( Plug-N-Play ready OS ) , but I have to also set ACPI on also.In fact , just for your own reference ?
See this here : Advanced Configuration &amp; Power Interface ( ACPI ) : http : //www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/index.htm [ intel.com ] APKP.S. = &gt; Probably some " oversimplifying " on my end , but , I 'd say it 's fairly accurate... but , correct when &amp; where I am off/wrong , IF I am fellas - I can stand correction as much as the next guy can , always learning here , like anyone else ( cuz nobody " knows it all " ) ... apk</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Windows 7 (like all modern versions of Windows) does nothing with the BIOS at all - the BIOS ceases running as soon as Windows starts booting.
" -  by sunderland56 (621843)  on Wednesday October 21, @10:03AM (#29822923)Per my subject-line above?
What you've stated, is NOT entirely true:See, You've overlooked how "ACPI" actually works though - &amp; all it REALLY does, is TELL THE BIOS when to 'power things down', but the BIOS still does the actual work essentially ONLY IT DOESN'T MANAGE/COMMAND IT, itself!So, instead of controlling that via the BIOS ONLY?An OS that has the ACPI spec built in manages it all, allowing for extremely lower &amp; fine grained power mgt./use control!That let's Windows manage it basically, just like a "boss" does @ work, telling the actual workers (BIOS) to do tasks... &amp;, iirc, it needs SMBus functionality.ACPI can't be applied to old hardwares either.In order for it to do its job, BOTH the OS + the mobo's chipset have to be ready or it, and for some functions even CPU's themselves need to be designed to be compliant for it as well.So - YES, the BIOS is still needed &amp; does actual work (when told to do so).ACPI replaced the older APM power spec (Win95 onwards up until 1999 (around when Windows 98 came into the picture, right on upwards, iirc),Plus, you have to set your BIOS to use it (on modern mobos, like the ASUS P6T I have here powering an Intel I7 Core 920), it's not just telling the BIOS you have a PnP (Plug-N-Play ready OS), but I have to also set ACPI on also.In fact, just for your own reference?
See this here:Advanced Configuration &amp; Power Interface (ACPI):http://www.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/index.htm [intel.com]APKP.S.=&gt; Probably some "oversimplifying" on my end, but, I'd say it's fairly accurate... but, correct when &amp; where I am off/wrong, IF I am fellas - I can stand correction as much as the next guy can, always learning here, like anyone else (cuz nobody "knows it all")... apk
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823429</id>
	<title>Re:Less power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256140020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.sqjg.cn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.sqjg.cn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.sqjg.cn</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301</id>
	<title>Windows version - 7 *ULTIMATE*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256139300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They tested Windows ULTIMATE, the best of the newest against the oldest patched-up version of XP.  And it only saved a marginal amount of power. and may be slightly faster in some operations.  What about the versions that the average Joe is going to be running?  There are Starter, Home, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate; each with an increasing price requirement (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare).  How does the "basement" version compare to XP SP3 (or against the various flavors of XP)?  Still not apples-to-apples (oh, I hate the puns from that), but might give a better representation of what's going on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They tested Windows ULTIMATE , the best of the newest against the oldest patched-up version of XP .
And it only saved a marginal amount of power .
and may be slightly faster in some operations .
What about the versions that the average Joe is going to be running ?
There are Starter , Home , Home Premium , Professional , and Ultimate ; each with an increasing price requirement ( http : //windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare ) .
How does the " basement " version compare to XP SP3 ( or against the various flavors of XP ) ?
Still not apples-to-apples ( oh , I hate the puns from that ) , but might give a better representation of what 's going on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They tested Windows ULTIMATE, the best of the newest against the oldest patched-up version of XP.
And it only saved a marginal amount of power.
and may be slightly faster in some operations.
What about the versions that the average Joe is going to be running?
There are Starter, Home, Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate; each with an increasing price requirement (http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/compare).
How does the "basement" version compare to XP SP3 (or against the various flavors of XP)?
Still not apples-to-apples (oh, I hate the puns from that), but might give a better representation of what's going on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711</id>
	<title>Something is wrong with Win7 power management</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256136420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an Abit IP35-Pro motherboard.  I mostly run Linux but occasionally boot to Windows 7 for some games.  Almost always Windows 7 will screw up my BIOS to the point that the automatic CPU fan control no longer works (requiring a hard power-off to fix).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an Abit IP35-Pro motherboard .
I mostly run Linux but occasionally boot to Windows 7 for some games .
Almost always Windows 7 will screw up my BIOS to the point that the automatic CPU fan control no longer works ( requiring a hard power-off to fix ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an Abit IP35-Pro motherboard.
I mostly run Linux but occasionally boot to Windows 7 for some games.
Almost always Windows 7 will screw up my BIOS to the point that the automatic CPU fan control no longer works (requiring a hard power-off to fix).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826389</id>
	<title>Re:Less power?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256152740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nooo! I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase! Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21<b>GW</b>!</p></div><p>It's called <i>JigaWatts</i>!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nooo !
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase !
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW ! It 's called JigaWatts !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nooo!
I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase!
Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!It's called JigaWatts!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831457</id>
	<title>BFD</title>
	<author>gchesney0001</author>
	<datestamp>1256140680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>BFD</htmltext>
<tokenext>BFD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BFD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823789
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29833585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823281
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822999
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29874805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29840341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823539
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29828573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825399
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824383
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823687
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29844659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29834895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832157
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822733
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826389
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831107
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822871
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829625
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824837
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825605
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29837187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825111
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823665
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826091
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823045
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823003
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825015
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823639
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827521
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29830059
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823343
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_21_1234214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831585
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822651
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823175
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29844659
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826193
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832313
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823501
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825111
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823547
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824587
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831107
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29834895
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829429
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826225
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822799
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29874805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29840341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822649
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29828573
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823397
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824029
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823697
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823639
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827521
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824837
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825605
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29837187
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832157
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822733
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823475
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825139
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827307
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827557
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29831827
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29833585
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822997
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822871
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29829625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823503
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823965
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825515
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823709
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825645
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826389
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29827865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29830059
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823145
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823789
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824525
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823395
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824361
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824451
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823665
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29824499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823391
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826091
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29826915
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29832391
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29822947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823281
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823341
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_21_1234214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29823003
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_21_1234214.29825015
</commentlist>
</conversation>
