<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_03_003243</id>
	<title>Mac OS X 10.6.2 Will Block Atom Processors</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257248940000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:benburch@pob\%5B\%5Dcom\%5B'ox.'ingap\%5D" rel="nofollow">Archeopteryx</a> writes <i>"According to Wired's 'Gadget Lab' blog, Snow Leopard's next update, OS X 10.6.2, will <a href="http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/11/snow-leopard-update-blocks-intel-atom-kills-hackintoshes/">block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh' netbooks</a>. It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts, but Apple's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware. There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor, so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the <a href="http://www.osx86project.org/">OSX86</a> crowd. But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware &mdash; priced accordingly of course &mdash; for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook? The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Archeopteryx writes " According to Wired 's 'Gadget Lab ' blog , Snow Leopard 's next update , OS X 10.6.2 , will block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh ' netbooks .
It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts , but Apple 's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware .
There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor , so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the OSX86 crowd .
But , it raises the question : is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware    priced accordingly of course    for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted , like the netbook ?
The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms .
I could just pay for a license to use it .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Archeopteryx writes "According to Wired's 'Gadget Lab' blog, Snow Leopard's next update, OS X 10.6.2, will block the Atom processor and will disable many 'Hackintosh' netbooks.
It is indeed true that OS X will run just fine on some netbooks if you install the right drivers and ktexts, but Apple's EULA has always specified that the license was applicable only to Apple hardware.
There have always been processor types specified in OS X and that have to be worked around now for those who want to use an Atom or similar non-Apple-adopted processor, so this is likely no more than a hiccup on the road for the OSX86 crowd.
But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook?
The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms.
I could just pay for a license to use it.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284</id>
	<title>What is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you want to have Mac OS X, by an iMac or MBP 13". I never understood people who wanted to have Mac OS X on a tiny cheap bad quality laptop. Macs are not so much more expensive if you take into account what kind of hardware you get (and I do not mean just the computing power but the over all quality of the product).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you want to have Mac OS X , by an iMac or MBP 13 " .
I never understood people who wanted to have Mac OS X on a tiny cheap bad quality laptop .
Macs are not so much more expensive if you take into account what kind of hardware you get ( and I do not mean just the computing power but the over all quality of the product ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you want to have Mac OS X, by an iMac or MBP 13".
I never understood people who wanted to have Mac OS X on a tiny cheap bad quality laptop.
Macs are not so much more expensive if you take into account what kind of hardware you get (and I do not mean just the computing power but the over all quality of the product).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</id>
	<title>Um...</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1257168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware.  To do this, it creates nice, shiny software, and then deadbolts it as much as it can to the hardware, so people will pay the extra price for the hardware in order to get the software.</p><p>Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them, and would enable customers to (rightly) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does <i>exactly</i> the same thing for much much less.</p><p>It's not exactly rocket science here.  Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple makes its money from its ( vastly overpriced ) hardware .
To do this , it creates nice , shiny software , and then deadbolts it as much as it can to the hardware , so people will pay the extra price for the hardware in order to get the software.Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them , and would enable customers to ( rightly ) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple 's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.It 's not exactly rocket science here .
Apple knows where the money is , and individually licensing the software is n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware.
To do this, it creates nice, shiny software, and then deadbolts it as much as it can to the hardware, so people will pay the extra price for the hardware in order to get the software.Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them, and would enable customers to (rightly) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.It's not exactly rocket science here.
Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958504</id>
	<title>Typo in summary</title>
	<author>ipX</author>
	<datestamp>1257173700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's kext not ktext, lulz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's kext not ktext , lulz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's kext not ktext, lulz.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963178</id>
	<title>Why try to fit the square piece in the round hole?</title>
	<author>Fastfwd</author>
	<datestamp>1257262380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you really want to run OSX then maybe you should get Mac hardware. OSX runs that great not just becaused it has a good foundation(BSD I believe) but also because it only needs to perform on a restricted variety of hardware.</p><p>If you are looking for free linux is there and it's pretty good now even for the average user.</p><p>If you are looking for maximum hardware compatibility the market leader is still windows</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you really want to run OSX then maybe you should get Mac hardware .
OSX runs that great not just becaused it has a good foundation ( BSD I believe ) but also because it only needs to perform on a restricted variety of hardware.If you are looking for free linux is there and it 's pretty good now even for the average user.If you are looking for maximum hardware compatibility the market leader is still windows</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you really want to run OSX then maybe you should get Mac hardware.
OSX runs that great not just becaused it has a good foundation(BSD I believe) but also because it only needs to perform on a restricted variety of hardware.If you are looking for free linux is there and it's pretty good now even for the average user.If you are looking for maximum hardware compatibility the market leader is still windows</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957212</id>
	<title>But will it run on a Psystar?</title>
	<author>Jeremy Erwin</author>
	<datestamp>1257167760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10.6.2 would have been the perfect opportunity for Apple to muck around with its DRM-- though getting cocky might look bad in front of the judge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10.6.2 would have been the perfect opportunity for Apple to muck around with its DRM-- though getting cocky might look bad in front of the judge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10.6.2 would have been the perfect opportunity for Apple to muck around with its DRM-- though getting cocky might look bad in front of the judge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957892</id>
	<title>ReAtom != 32bit CPU</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1257170580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPU</p></div></blockquote><p>Except when it doesn't. Current Atom offerings include the 32-bit, no-hyperthreading Z-series aimed for UMPCs, the 32-bit, hyperthreading N-series aimed for netbooks, and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, single-core 200-series aimed for "nettops", and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, dual-core 300-series aimed also aimed for "nettops".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPUExcept when it does n't .
Current Atom offerings include the 32-bit , no-hyperthreading Z-series aimed for UMPCs , the 32-bit , hyperthreading N-series aimed for netbooks , and the 64-bit , hyperthreading , single-core 200-series aimed for " nettops " , and the 64-bit , hyperthreading , dual-core 300-series aimed also aimed for " nettops " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPUExcept when it doesn't.
Current Atom offerings include the 32-bit, no-hyperthreading Z-series aimed for UMPCs, the 32-bit, hyperthreading N-series aimed for netbooks, and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, single-core 200-series aimed for "nettops", and the 64-bit, hyperthreading, dual-core 300-series aimed also aimed for "nettops".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962390</id>
	<title>Obligatory car analogy</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1257257160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So you're saying that this is like a car manufacturer making a special fuel only for its own cars, other people finding that this fuel improves the performance of cars not made by the company, and then accusing the company of intentionally locking them out when it makes an improvement to the fuel that works in the company's cars but fails in other brands? If the company somehow made the fuel dispenser so that it could only be operated with their cars, people would accuse it of blatantly locking others out. So I guess they want the company to be sure the fuel works (and improves performance) in all brands of cars, even though it specifically states that the fuel is only for its own cars.

<p>(sorry for the long post... sadly I don't think I could have shortened it much, even given an eternity)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying that this is like a car manufacturer making a special fuel only for its own cars , other people finding that this fuel improves the performance of cars not made by the company , and then accusing the company of intentionally locking them out when it makes an improvement to the fuel that works in the company 's cars but fails in other brands ?
If the company somehow made the fuel dispenser so that it could only be operated with their cars , people would accuse it of blatantly locking others out .
So I guess they want the company to be sure the fuel works ( and improves performance ) in all brands of cars , even though it specifically states that the fuel is only for its own cars .
( sorry for the long post... sadly I do n't think I could have shortened it much , even given an eternity )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying that this is like a car manufacturer making a special fuel only for its own cars, other people finding that this fuel improves the performance of cars not made by the company, and then accusing the company of intentionally locking them out when it makes an improvement to the fuel that works in the company's cars but fails in other brands?
If the company somehow made the fuel dispenser so that it could only be operated with their cars, people would accuse it of blatantly locking others out.
So I guess they want the company to be sure the fuel works (and improves performance) in all brands of cars, even though it specifically states that the fuel is only for its own cars.
(sorry for the long post... sadly I don't think I could have shortened it much, even given an eternity)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959936</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257184260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not supporting it is one thing.  Breaking it on purpose is something else and is what they're talking about here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not supporting it is one thing .
Breaking it on purpose is something else and is what they 're talking about here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not supporting it is one thing.
Breaking it on purpose is something else and is what they're talking about here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959706</id>
	<title>Apple wants your soul</title>
	<author>kawabago</author>
	<datestamp>1257182400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple wants to own your soul. You have to use their hardware for that to happen.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple wants to own your soul .
You have to use their hardware for that to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple wants to own your soul.
You have to use their hardware for that to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959324</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.</p><p>Actually, no. You broke Slashdot Rule 2: Tossing out a few personal anecdotes as though they were meaningful, and then pre-emptively pissing and moaning about the spanking you were likely going to get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I just broke Slashdot rule 5 , no criticism of Apple allowed , so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.Actually , no .
You broke Slashdot Rule 2 : Tossing out a few personal anecdotes as though they were meaningful , and then pre-emptively pissing and moaning about the spanking you were likely going to get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.Actually, no.
You broke Slashdot Rule 2: Tossing out a few personal anecdotes as though they were meaningful, and then pre-emptively pissing and moaning about the spanking you were likely going to get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257170340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a long time hardware tech, I am convinced the hardware I see in Macs is no better or worse than average PC hardware-simply because it IS average PC hardware.</p><p>I own a couple (Desktop and mac book) which I got to see what all the fuss was about, and frankly I dont see the so called superiority of OSX over Windows either.</p><p>Certainly I have seen no difference in stability, and found some things, particularly the setup program to be markedly inferior to Windows!</p><p>The fans have to say its higher quality, or look<br>foolish for paying 30\% more for exactly the same thing.</p><p>I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.</p><p>Meh, I got karma to burn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a long time hardware tech , I am convinced the hardware I see in Macs is no better or worse than average PC hardware-simply because it IS average PC hardware.I own a couple ( Desktop and mac book ) which I got to see what all the fuss was about , and frankly I dont see the so called superiority of OSX over Windows either.Certainly I have seen no difference in stability , and found some things , particularly the setup program to be markedly inferior to Windows ! The fans have to say its higher quality , or lookfoolish for paying 30 \ % more for exactly the same thing.I just broke Slashdot rule 5 , no criticism of Apple allowed , so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.Meh , I got karma to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a long time hardware tech, I am convinced the hardware I see in Macs is no better or worse than average PC hardware-simply because it IS average PC hardware.I own a couple (Desktop and mac book) which I got to see what all the fuss was about, and frankly I dont see the so called superiority of OSX over Windows either.Certainly I have seen no difference in stability, and found some things, particularly the setup program to be markedly inferior to Windows!The fans have to say its higher quality, or lookfoolish for paying 30\% more for exactly the same thing.I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.Meh, I got karma to burn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960794</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>robertrydberg</author>
	<datestamp>1257279000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>E. Debs,

But Apple does NOT have a netbook nor intends to produce one.

There is no competition with Apple products.

Am I missing something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>E. Debs , But Apple does NOT have a netbook nor intends to produce one .
There is no competition with Apple products .
Am I missing something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>E. Debs,

But Apple does NOT have a netbook nor intends to produce one.
There is no competition with Apple products.
Am I missing something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618</id>
	<title>Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPU</title>
	<author>fast turtle</author>
	<datestamp>1257169440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and 10.6 is moving towards a full 64bit Architecture. This means the Atom <b>Can't</b> run it because it's a 32bit only CPU. In other words, this is a non-story</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and 10.6 is moving towards a full 64bit Architecture .
This means the Atom Ca n't run it because it 's a 32bit only CPU .
In other words , this is a non-story</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and 10.6 is moving towards a full 64bit Architecture.
This means the Atom Can't run it because it's a 32bit only CPU.
In other words, this is a non-story</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29970514</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>mundanetechnomancer</author>
	<datestamp>1257250860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what i want to know is why not license it to other companies, but with big licensing terms<br>such as,<br>1. all hardware on the board or in the case must work fully with OS X<br>2. the drivers for all devices used for the board/computer must be provided to apple (if you have the drivers written for something so you can include it in your "OS X compatible" you will provide apple or other manufacturers with what they need to use that device in the future)<br>3. you must pay a premium to be able to claim your devices are OS X compatible and put the sticker on the case<br>4. you must agree to provide support for your hardware, in physical warranty for 1 year<br>5. you must agree to provide support for your hardware, in software and driver support for 2 years<br>6. any motherboard or computer sold with the OS X compatible sticker must include a copy of OS X</p><p>seriously, why wouldn't it work?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what i want to know is why not license it to other companies , but with big licensing termssuch as,1 .
all hardware on the board or in the case must work fully with OS X2 .
the drivers for all devices used for the board/computer must be provided to apple ( if you have the drivers written for something so you can include it in your " OS X compatible " you will provide apple or other manufacturers with what they need to use that device in the future ) 3. you must pay a premium to be able to claim your devices are OS X compatible and put the sticker on the case4 .
you must agree to provide support for your hardware , in physical warranty for 1 year5 .
you must agree to provide support for your hardware , in software and driver support for 2 years6 .
any motherboard or computer sold with the OS X compatible sticker must include a copy of OS Xseriously , why would n't it work ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what i want to know is why not license it to other companies, but with big licensing termssuch as,1.
all hardware on the board or in the case must work fully with OS X2.
the drivers for all devices used for the board/computer must be provided to apple (if you have the drivers written for something so you can include it in your "OS X compatible" you will provide apple or other manufacturers with what they need to use that device in the future)3. you must pay a premium to be able to claim your devices are OS X compatible and put the sticker on the case4.
you must agree to provide support for your hardware, in physical warranty for 1 year5.
you must agree to provide support for your hardware, in software and driver support for 2 years6.
any motherboard or computer sold with the OS X compatible sticker must include a copy of OS Xseriously, why wouldn't it work?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957594</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1257169320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's a higher quality product</p></div><p>If by higher quality you mean the same quality, sold to artsy elitists, with a custom OS that basically invented the "bloated and slow" genre...the I guess you are right.</p><p>And don't make me get my anecdotes out to counter your anecdotes.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a higher quality productIf by higher quality you mean the same quality , sold to artsy elitists , with a custom OS that basically invented the " bloated and slow " genre...the I guess you are right.And do n't make me get my anecdotes out to counter your anecdotes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a higher quality productIf by higher quality you mean the same quality, sold to artsy elitists, with a custom OS that basically invented the "bloated and slow" genre...the I guess you are right.And don't make me get my anecdotes out to counter your anecdotes.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29972648</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257262200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You want people to use english properly?  Continue to teach grammar and spelling in schools instead of switching entirely over to literature only after a specific point.  Clearly they don't go far enough as it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You want people to use english properly ?
Continue to teach grammar and spelling in schools instead of switching entirely over to literature only after a specific point .
Clearly they do n't go far enough as it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want people to use english properly?
Continue to teach grammar and spelling in schools instead of switching entirely over to literature only after a specific point.
Clearly they don't go far enough as it is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958792</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>MeNeXT</author>
	<datestamp>1257175200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nice of Jobs to limit his market but that's not what I'm buying. I own a Mac but the Apple experience leaves a lot to be desired and in some cases modified systems preform better at a lower cost than the real thing. Where Apple gets it right it gets it right but when it gets it wrong (iTunes, iPhone as anything but a music phone) it gets it really wrong. One size does not fit all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice of Jobs to limit his market but that 's not what I 'm buying .
I own a Mac but the Apple experience leaves a lot to be desired and in some cases modified systems preform better at a lower cost than the real thing .
Where Apple gets it right it gets it right but when it gets it wrong ( iTunes , iPhone as anything but a music phone ) it gets it really wrong .
One size does not fit all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice of Jobs to limit his market but that's not what I'm buying.
I own a Mac but the Apple experience leaves a lot to be desired and in some cases modified systems preform better at a lower cost than the real thing.
Where Apple gets it right it gets it right but when it gets it wrong (iTunes, iPhone as anything but a music phone) it gets it really wrong.
One size does not fit all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959390</id>
	<title>Re:Hackintosh as a Production Environment</title>
	<author>Arcady13</author>
	<datestamp>1257179700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use an iMac as a daily work computer, but I also use a Dell mini 9 running OS X 10.5 as my laptop. I don't need a $999+ laptop to surf the web and check email, and my iPhone is too small to do things like Remote Desktop easily. For about $400, I have a portable Mac that makes sense for me. A MacBook Air at $1500 may be just about as light, but it is very large (13.3") and doesn't have two USB ports, ethernet, VGA, an SDHC card reader, etc. When Apple makes a 9-10 inch laptop, I'll probably buy it, unless they continue on thinking I don't need to plug things into my computer because it's small. And they'd probably still charge $999. And I can run Windows on both the iMac and the Dell, natively. Why not the other way around, other than some silly EULA? (I did pay for an extra OS X retail disc for the Dell.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use an iMac as a daily work computer , but I also use a Dell mini 9 running OS X 10.5 as my laptop .
I do n't need a $ 999 + laptop to surf the web and check email , and my iPhone is too small to do things like Remote Desktop easily .
For about $ 400 , I have a portable Mac that makes sense for me .
A MacBook Air at $ 1500 may be just about as light , but it is very large ( 13.3 " ) and does n't have two USB ports , ethernet , VGA , an SDHC card reader , etc .
When Apple makes a 9-10 inch laptop , I 'll probably buy it , unless they continue on thinking I do n't need to plug things into my computer because it 's small .
And they 'd probably still charge $ 999 .
And I can run Windows on both the iMac and the Dell , natively .
Why not the other way around , other than some silly EULA ?
( I did pay for an extra OS X retail disc for the Dell .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use an iMac as a daily work computer, but I also use a Dell mini 9 running OS X 10.5 as my laptop.
I don't need a $999+ laptop to surf the web and check email, and my iPhone is too small to do things like Remote Desktop easily.
For about $400, I have a portable Mac that makes sense for me.
A MacBook Air at $1500 may be just about as light, but it is very large (13.3") and doesn't have two USB ports, ethernet, VGA, an SDHC card reader, etc.
When Apple makes a 9-10 inch laptop, I'll probably buy it, unless they continue on thinking I don't need to plug things into my computer because it's small.
And they'd probably still charge $999.
And I can run Windows on both the iMac and the Dell, natively.
Why not the other way around, other than some silly EULA?
(I did pay for an extra OS X retail disc for the Dell.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964538</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257268800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope you got paid to post that.</p><p>Otherwise, its just sad that someone would pour out that drivel and actually believe it.  Apples are overpriced garbage, with yellowing plastic, broken hinges, exploding batteries, and blown capacitors, but their marketing/brainwashing is second to none.  Case in point: you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you got paid to post that.Otherwise , its just sad that someone would pour out that drivel and actually believe it .
Apples are overpriced garbage , with yellowing plastic , broken hinges , exploding batteries , and blown capacitors , but their marketing/brainwashing is second to none .
Case in point : you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you got paid to post that.Otherwise, its just sad that someone would pour out that drivel and actually believe it.
Apples are overpriced garbage, with yellowing plastic, broken hinges, exploding batteries, and blown capacitors, but their marketing/brainwashing is second to none.
Case in point: you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964774</id>
	<title>Third-party?</title>
	<author>AniVisual</author>
	<datestamp>1257269700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Right now I'm wondering what will happen to people who purchase Apple MacBooks, mod 'em and resell 'em, like Axiotron and their <a href="http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook" title="axiotron.com" rel="nofollow">ModBooks</a> [axiotron.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right now I 'm wondering what will happen to people who purchase Apple MacBooks , mod 'em and resell 'em , like Axiotron and their ModBooks [ axiotron.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Right now I'm wondering what will happen to people who purchase Apple MacBooks, mod 'em and resell 'em, like Axiotron and their ModBooks [axiotron.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962708</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257259560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This post was an epic failure from the start. The overpriced mac theory is a dead horse<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... beaten to death 1000000000 times.</p><p>Yes for some the available hardware is overkill, I wish they made a laptop that was around $600-700.</p><p>But for others I guarantee your lower cost hackintosh can not do the same things as the high end macs. Whether it's an easy test such as mastering 2 channel audio at higher sample rates/bits or something more hearty like editing HD video your hackintosh won't cut it.</p><p>The hardware lock does a lot for stability and usability. Why would we want a third OS to complain about (after Windows and Linux)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This post was an epic failure from the start .
The overpriced mac theory is a dead horse ... beaten to death 1000000000 times.Yes for some the available hardware is overkill , I wish they made a laptop that was around $ 600-700.But for others I guarantee your lower cost hackintosh can not do the same things as the high end macs .
Whether it 's an easy test such as mastering 2 channel audio at higher sample rates/bits or something more hearty like editing HD video your hackintosh wo n't cut it.The hardware lock does a lot for stability and usability .
Why would we want a third OS to complain about ( after Windows and Linux ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This post was an epic failure from the start.
The overpriced mac theory is a dead horse ... beaten to death 1000000000 times.Yes for some the available hardware is overkill, I wish they made a laptop that was around $600-700.But for others I guarantee your lower cost hackintosh can not do the same things as the high end macs.
Whether it's an easy test such as mastering 2 channel audio at higher sample rates/bits or something more hearty like editing HD video your hackintosh won't cut it.The hardware lock does a lot for stability and usability.
Why would we want a third OS to complain about (after Windows and Linux)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29983200</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257019740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I don't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PC</p><p>Then maybe you don't do much with your Mac. Try more Mac specific software to GET STUFF DONE, eg:<br>iLife (iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Garage Band, iWeb)<br>iWork (Pages, Numbers)<br>Aperture<br>Final Cut Studio (Final Cut Pro 7, Motion 4, Soundtrack Pro 3, Color 1.5, Compressor 3.5, DVD Studio Pro 4)<br>Logic Studio,<br>Xcode + apps,<br>TextMate,<br>Transmit,<br>OmniGraffle Pro,<br>OmniPlan,<br>OmniOutliner,<br>Merlin,<br>NovaMind<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..plus the built in stuff<br>Time Machine, Safari, Mail, iChat, AddressBook, iCal, iSync, Preview, Dictionary, Terminal<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..plus the thousands of fantastic Indie apps, eg. SousChef, Things, Acorn, tranquility, 1Password, NetNewsWire, Capo, Delicious Library, Carbon Copy Cloner, GrandPerspective, HandBrake, ScreenFlow, CSSEdit</p><p>I can't imagine ever having to use a personal computer that is not OS X on a slim 17" laptop. That's time to herd goats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I do n't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PCThen maybe you do n't do much with your Mac .
Try more Mac specific software to GET STUFF DONE , eg : iLife ( iPhoto , iMovie , iDVD , Garage Band , iWeb ) iWork ( Pages , Numbers ) ApertureFinal Cut Studio ( Final Cut Pro 7 , Motion 4 , Soundtrack Pro 3 , Color 1.5 , Compressor 3.5 , DVD Studio Pro 4 ) Logic Studio,Xcode + apps,TextMate,Transmit,OmniGraffle Pro,OmniPlan,OmniOutliner,Merlin,NovaMind ..plus the built in stuffTime Machine , Safari , Mail , iChat , AddressBook , iCal , iSync , Preview , Dictionary , Terminal ..plus the thousands of fantastic Indie apps , eg .
SousChef , Things , Acorn , tranquility , 1Password , NetNewsWire , Capo , Delicious Library , Carbon Copy Cloner , GrandPerspective , HandBrake , ScreenFlow , CSSEditI ca n't imagine ever having to use a personal computer that is not OS X on a slim 17 " laptop .
That 's time to herd goats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I don't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PCThen maybe you don't do much with your Mac.
Try more Mac specific software to GET STUFF DONE, eg:iLife (iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, Garage Band, iWeb)iWork (Pages, Numbers)ApertureFinal Cut Studio (Final Cut Pro 7, Motion 4, Soundtrack Pro 3, Color 1.5, Compressor 3.5, DVD Studio Pro 4)Logic Studio,Xcode + apps,TextMate,Transmit,OmniGraffle Pro,OmniPlan,OmniOutliner,Merlin,NovaMind ..plus the built in stuffTime Machine, Safari, Mail, iChat, AddressBook, iCal, iSync, Preview, Dictionary, Terminal ..plus the thousands of fantastic Indie apps, eg.
SousChef, Things, Acorn, tranquility, 1Password, NetNewsWire, Capo, Delicious Library, Carbon Copy Cloner, GrandPerspective, HandBrake, ScreenFlow, CSSEditI can't imagine ever having to use a personal computer that is not OS X on a slim 17" laptop.
That's time to herd goats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958334</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1257172800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them, and would enable customers to (rightly) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.</i></p><p>In other words they're behaving anti-competitively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them , and would enable customers to ( rightly ) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple 's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.In other words they 're behaving anti-competitively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Selling the software individually would allow their competition to massively undercut them, and would enable customers to (rightly) ask why they should bother to pay extra for Apple's shiny hardware when X Hackintosh does exactly the same thing for much much less.In other words they're behaving anti-competitively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958550</id>
	<title>Licensed copy  ownership</title>
	<author>timbloom</author>
	<datestamp>1257173880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know it's up in the air wether this is appropriate, but it's the truth with most software:  You purchased a license to use their product and media from which to install it on your computer.  You did not wholly purchase the product.  Their license states among many other things, that it is for use on approved hardware only.  As the law stands currently, it's their right to do so.

Also, running OS X on these machines is often less than ideal.  Apple spends lots of time and money on fine tuning hardware and software to work well together in the end product they sell to you.  A company like Psystar is going out and selling a product that may have most the elements of a Mac, but will not have the same QA put into it and I don't believe Apple wants to be associated with any bad experience an end user may have.

If it weren't for these licenses, the products themselves would eventually cease to make money and, inevitably, cease to exist. If you can find a better way to keep a product from being pirated, being misused, duplicated by a competitor, yet still be profitable.. morally,  the software industry needs you.

And I think it's also relevant to state that most, but I'm sure not all, hackintosh-style machines are using pre-built pirated copies of the operating system anyway.  This isn't just breaking the EULA, it's also just stealing in general.  If you spend many a late night hacking around trying to get Apple software to work on your unsupported hardware, you obviously think it's a good product else you wouldn't waste the time.
A company that has employees that make a great product deserve to have the money to reimburse their employees for creating that product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it 's up in the air wether this is appropriate , but it 's the truth with most software : You purchased a license to use their product and media from which to install it on your computer .
You did not wholly purchase the product .
Their license states among many other things , that it is for use on approved hardware only .
As the law stands currently , it 's their right to do so .
Also , running OS X on these machines is often less than ideal .
Apple spends lots of time and money on fine tuning hardware and software to work well together in the end product they sell to you .
A company like Psystar is going out and selling a product that may have most the elements of a Mac , but will not have the same QA put into it and I do n't believe Apple wants to be associated with any bad experience an end user may have .
If it were n't for these licenses , the products themselves would eventually cease to make money and , inevitably , cease to exist .
If you can find a better way to keep a product from being pirated , being misused , duplicated by a competitor , yet still be profitable.. morally , the software industry needs you .
And I think it 's also relevant to state that most , but I 'm sure not all , hackintosh-style machines are using pre-built pirated copies of the operating system anyway .
This is n't just breaking the EULA , it 's also just stealing in general .
If you spend many a late night hacking around trying to get Apple software to work on your unsupported hardware , you obviously think it 's a good product else you would n't waste the time .
A company that has employees that make a great product deserve to have the money to reimburse their employees for creating that product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it's up in the air wether this is appropriate, but it's the truth with most software:  You purchased a license to use their product and media from which to install it on your computer.
You did not wholly purchase the product.
Their license states among many other things, that it is for use on approved hardware only.
As the law stands currently, it's their right to do so.
Also, running OS X on these machines is often less than ideal.
Apple spends lots of time and money on fine tuning hardware and software to work well together in the end product they sell to you.
A company like Psystar is going out and selling a product that may have most the elements of a Mac, but will not have the same QA put into it and I don't believe Apple wants to be associated with any bad experience an end user may have.
If it weren't for these licenses, the products themselves would eventually cease to make money and, inevitably, cease to exist.
If you can find a better way to keep a product from being pirated, being misused, duplicated by a competitor, yet still be profitable.. morally,  the software industry needs you.
And I think it's also relevant to state that most, but I'm sure not all, hackintosh-style machines are using pre-built pirated copies of the operating system anyway.
This isn't just breaking the EULA, it's also just stealing in general.
If you spend many a late night hacking around trying to get Apple software to work on your unsupported hardware, you obviously think it's a good product else you wouldn't waste the time.
A company that has employees that make a great product deserve to have the money to reimburse their employees for creating that product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961566</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257247740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Power Computing made better computers than Apple at cheaper prices.<br>Apple does not want people buying better computers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Power Computing made better computers than Apple at cheaper prices.Apple does not want people buying better computers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Power Computing made better computers than Apple at cheaper prices.Apple does not want people buying better computers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957786</id>
	<title>Why would you want to comply?</title>
	<author>godless dave</author>
	<datestamp>1257170040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>The only reason OSX is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms</i>
<br>
Then that's your problem. As long as you pay for OSX, you can disregard the licensing terms all you want with not a shred of guilt. Apple may think it's their business what you do with a product you paid for, but there's no reason for you to share in their delusion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason OSX is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms Then that 's your problem .
As long as you pay for OSX , you can disregard the licensing terms all you want with not a shred of guilt .
Apple may think it 's their business what you do with a product you paid for , but there 's no reason for you to share in their delusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason OSX is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms

Then that's your problem.
As long as you pay for OSX, you can disregard the licensing terms all you want with not a shred of guilt.
Apple may think it's their business what you do with a product you paid for, but there's no reason for you to share in their delusion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29965750</id>
	<title>Re:Another f**k up for Apple!</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1257273900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not dumb enough to have bought a Pre.</p><p>They should allow Google Voice on the iPhone, right after Google addresses the valid privacy concerns exposed 2 weeks ago.</p><p>It's not their job to make OS X compatible with hacker computers.  And they have a valid concern in blocking it, to protect their user experience and reputation.</p><p>Unblocked on a PC?  Are you kidding me?  Try running unblocked  there Einstein.  No firewalls, no anti-virus, no anti-spyware.  THAT would be unblocked.  Try that on your PC and see how long before you've been violated.</p><p>Unblocked on a PC, give me a break.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not dumb enough to have bought a Pre.They should allow Google Voice on the iPhone , right after Google addresses the valid privacy concerns exposed 2 weeks ago.It 's not their job to make OS X compatible with hacker computers .
And they have a valid concern in blocking it , to protect their user experience and reputation.Unblocked on a PC ?
Are you kidding me ?
Try running unblocked there Einstein .
No firewalls , no anti-virus , no anti-spyware .
THAT would be unblocked .
Try that on your PC and see how long before you 've been violated.Unblocked on a PC , give me a break .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not dumb enough to have bought a Pre.They should allow Google Voice on the iPhone, right after Google addresses the valid privacy concerns exposed 2 weeks ago.It's not their job to make OS X compatible with hacker computers.
And they have a valid concern in blocking it, to protect their user experience and reputation.Unblocked on a PC?
Are you kidding me?
Try running unblocked  there Einstein.
No firewalls, no anti-virus, no anti-spyware.
THAT would be unblocked.
Try that on your PC and see how long before you've been violated.Unblocked on a PC, give me a break.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.30063556</id>
	<title>How the hell can you kill something...</title>
	<author>chiefted</author>
	<datestamp>1257104640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can you kill something that wasn't supported in the first place.

Seriously folks the name hackintosh should give you a clue as to what would have happened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you kill something that was n't supported in the first place .
Seriously folks the name hackintosh should give you a clue as to what would have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you kill something that wasn't supported in the first place.
Seriously folks the name hackintosh should give you a clue as to what would have happened.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198</id>
	<title>Hackintosh as a Production Environment</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does anybody actually use these "hackintosh" netbooks on a daily basis? I always assumed they were things people put together for fun. I understand that a number of people like Mac OS, but it seems to me that the OS would lose all of its appeal by not being linked to the hardware. If you have the technical prowess to install OS X on a netbook why are you using OS X on your netbook? Why not linux? (that wasn't meant as a flamebait question) Most people who use OS X instead of linux cite stability and support as their reasons. Wouldn't a hackintosh have neither of these?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anybody actually use these " hackintosh " netbooks on a daily basis ?
I always assumed they were things people put together for fun .
I understand that a number of people like Mac OS , but it seems to me that the OS would lose all of its appeal by not being linked to the hardware .
If you have the technical prowess to install OS X on a netbook why are you using OS X on your netbook ?
Why not linux ?
( that was n't meant as a flamebait question ) Most people who use OS X instead of linux cite stability and support as their reasons .
Would n't a hackintosh have neither of these ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anybody actually use these "hackintosh" netbooks on a daily basis?
I always assumed they were things people put together for fun.
I understand that a number of people like Mac OS, but it seems to me that the OS would lose all of its appeal by not being linked to the hardware.
If you have the technical prowess to install OS X on a netbook why are you using OS X on your netbook?
Why not linux?
(that wasn't meant as a flamebait question) Most people who use OS X instead of linux cite stability and support as their reasons.
Wouldn't a hackintosh have neither of these?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958588</id>
	<title>Never gonna happen</title>
	<author>rickb928</author>
	<datestamp>1257174120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple will not be selling OS X for other hardware ever.</p><p>Not having to support every wack piece of hardware and rely on manufacturers for info, SDKs, or even to write drivers is a blessing, and lets Apple both deliver excellent, reliable products, and focus on excellence, not merely surviving each minor update.</p><p>This is Microsoft's greatest problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple will not be selling OS X for other hardware ever.Not having to support every wack piece of hardware and rely on manufacturers for info , SDKs , or even to write drivers is a blessing , and lets Apple both deliver excellent , reliable products , and focus on excellence , not merely surviving each minor update.This is Microsoft 's greatest problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple will not be selling OS X for other hardware ever.Not having to support every wack piece of hardware and rely on manufacturers for info, SDKs, or even to write drivers is a blessing, and lets Apple both deliver excellent, reliable products, and focus on excellence, not merely surviving each minor update.This is Microsoft's greatest problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958822</id>
	<title>Mac isn't better</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1257175380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mac isn't better, its just different.  I'm a mac user for the past 3 years, and my next machine will be non-mac.  To me the Pros do not weigh more than the cons+price.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mac is n't better , its just different .
I 'm a mac user for the past 3 years , and my next machine will be non-mac .
To me the Pros do not weigh more than the cons + price .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mac isn't better, its just different.
I'm a mac user for the past 3 years, and my next machine will be non-mac.
To me the Pros do not weigh more than the cons+price.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957968</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem</title>
	<author>h4rr4r</author>
	<datestamp>1257170880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Macs are made by FOXCONN, the same folks who make dell parts. Macs have been the same consumer desktop crap in a shiny white case for a long time now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Macs are made by FOXCONN , the same folks who make dell parts .
Macs have been the same consumer desktop crap in a shiny white case for a long time now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Macs are made by FOXCONN, the same folks who make dell parts.
Macs have been the same consumer desktop crap in a shiny white case for a long time now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962044</id>
	<title>Or is it time to dump Apple?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257253380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish I knew why people continue to buy stuff from Apple. It is so obvious this company is evil at its core.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish I knew why people continue to buy stuff from Apple .
It is so obvious this company is evil at its core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish I knew why people continue to buy stuff from Apple.
It is so obvious this company is evil at its core.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29969338</id>
	<title>Er, no.</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1257247080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware &mdash; priced accordingly of course &mdash; for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook?"</p><p>Er, no.</p><p>A. You haven't got a clue what it takes to get software (let alone an OS) running on a vast variety of computers do you?<br>B. You haven't got a clue about their business model either, which is that hardware pays for the software.</p><p>OS X 10.5 to 10.6: $29<br>Windows Pro 6.0 to 6.1: $100</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But , it raises the question : is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware    priced accordingly of course    for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted , like the netbook ?
" Er , no.A .
You have n't got a clue what it takes to get software ( let alone an OS ) running on a vast variety of computers do you ? B .
You have n't got a clue about their business model either , which is that hardware pays for the software.OS X 10.5 to 10.6 : $ 29Windows Pro 6.0 to 6.1 : $ 100</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook?
"Er, no.A.
You haven't got a clue what it takes to get software (let alone an OS) running on a vast variety of computers do you?B.
You haven't got a clue about their business model either, which is that hardware pays for the software.OS X 10.5 to 10.6: $29Windows Pro 6.0 to 6.1: $100</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960104</id>
	<title>Why doesn't apple encourage adoption?</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1257185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I understand that apple sells hardware+software as a single package. That is their business model, and it is fairly successful keeping quality high and guaranteeing "the apple experience".</p><p>What I don't understand, is how apple intends to increase market share by continually, intentionally, limiting the ways that a non-apple user can experience their software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I understand that apple sells hardware + software as a single package .
That is their business model , and it is fairly successful keeping quality high and guaranteeing " the apple experience " .What I do n't understand , is how apple intends to increase market share by continually , intentionally , limiting the ways that a non-apple user can experience their software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I understand that apple sells hardware+software as a single package.
That is their business model, and it is fairly successful keeping quality high and guaranteeing "the apple experience".What I don't understand, is how apple intends to increase market share by continually, intentionally, limiting the ways that a non-apple user can experience their software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961314</id>
	<title>Here's a novel question, you should really read th</title>
	<author>ThorGod</author>
	<datestamp>1257243600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much is the average computer geek (notice the word 'geek', as I'm about to assume they are the type to install an OS on their own) willing to spend on that legal license of Mac OS X?</p><p>They could very easily charge the non-Apple hardware crowd MORE than they charge their Apple hardware customers.  This would help them differentiate the market.  The technical details are, of course, going to be hopped across by your average, driven computer geek.  But those barriers wont be broken by less sophisticated customers.</p><p>Apple currently charges 130 for a full version of OS Snow Leopard.  Would you be willing to pay another $200 for those Atom drivers?  How about $300, and make the OS cost a full $430?</p><p>My point is this:  Sure, they could easily release an OS for the masses.  An OS that dell could license to put on their built to order machines and so forth.  Further, they would need to subsidize the added cost of 'supporting' so many new combinations of hardware.  Suddenly Mac OS X isn't just $130, it's probably a lot more like the going rate for Windows 7.  The price is actually probably more simply because Microsoft's OS has years of experience in dealing with driver conflicts and other nasties caused by awkward combinations of hardware.</p><p>(Granted, the *nix/mach underpinning of OS X should make it less suspectible to said problems.  This point could be less than I expect.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is the average computer geek ( notice the word 'geek ' , as I 'm about to assume they are the type to install an OS on their own ) willing to spend on that legal license of Mac OS X ? They could very easily charge the non-Apple hardware crowd MORE than they charge their Apple hardware customers .
This would help them differentiate the market .
The technical details are , of course , going to be hopped across by your average , driven computer geek .
But those barriers wont be broken by less sophisticated customers.Apple currently charges 130 for a full version of OS Snow Leopard .
Would you be willing to pay another $ 200 for those Atom drivers ?
How about $ 300 , and make the OS cost a full $ 430 ? My point is this : Sure , they could easily release an OS for the masses .
An OS that dell could license to put on their built to order machines and so forth .
Further , they would need to subsidize the added cost of 'supporting ' so many new combinations of hardware .
Suddenly Mac OS X is n't just $ 130 , it 's probably a lot more like the going rate for Windows 7 .
The price is actually probably more simply because Microsoft 's OS has years of experience in dealing with driver conflicts and other nasties caused by awkward combinations of hardware .
( Granted , the * nix/mach underpinning of OS X should make it less suspectible to said problems .
This point could be less than I expect .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is the average computer geek (notice the word 'geek', as I'm about to assume they are the type to install an OS on their own) willing to spend on that legal license of Mac OS X?They could very easily charge the non-Apple hardware crowd MORE than they charge their Apple hardware customers.
This would help them differentiate the market.
The technical details are, of course, going to be hopped across by your average, driven computer geek.
But those barriers wont be broken by less sophisticated customers.Apple currently charges 130 for a full version of OS Snow Leopard.
Would you be willing to pay another $200 for those Atom drivers?
How about $300, and make the OS cost a full $430?My point is this:  Sure, they could easily release an OS for the masses.
An OS that dell could license to put on their built to order machines and so forth.
Further, they would need to subsidize the added cost of 'supporting' so many new combinations of hardware.
Suddenly Mac OS X isn't just $130, it's probably a lot more like the going rate for Windows 7.
The price is actually probably more simply because Microsoft's OS has years of experience in dealing with driver conflicts and other nasties caused by awkward combinations of hardware.
(Granted, the *nix/mach underpinning of OS X should make it less suspectible to said problems.
This point could be less than I expect.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958174</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As has been repeated ad-infinitum, this is no longer true (at the very least, not nearly as true as it used to be) since the switch to Intel processors.</p><p>In 2006.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As has been repeated ad-infinitum , this is no longer true ( at the very least , not nearly as true as it used to be ) since the switch to Intel processors.In 2006 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As has been repeated ad-infinitum, this is no longer true (at the very least, not nearly as true as it used to be) since the switch to Intel processors.In 2006.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958730</id>
	<title>Another f**k up for Apple!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They blocked iTunes from the Palm Pre...</p><p>They blocked Google Voice from the iPhone...</p><p>They will now block OSX from non-apple computers...</p><p>Isn't it time people get unblocked and get a PC already?</p><p>Life, without walls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They blocked iTunes from the Palm Pre...They blocked Google Voice from the iPhone...They will now block OSX from non-apple computers...Is n't it time people get unblocked and get a PC already ? Life , without walls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They blocked iTunes from the Palm Pre...They blocked Google Voice from the iPhone...They will now block OSX from non-apple computers...Isn't it time people get unblocked and get a PC already?Life, without walls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958698</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257174660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hi. world's richest man here. You are wrong.</p><p>Regards,<br>Bill Gates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hi .
world 's richest man here .
You are wrong.Regards,Bill Gates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hi.
world's richest man here.
You are wrong.Regards,Bill Gates.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961960</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257252240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  Other people have pointed out Apple's attempt to license their OS to other hardware manufacturers and how badly that worked out.  And in a way, Apple (or more precisely, Jobs) has also experimented with selling the $400 "OS only" solution -- i.e. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXTSTEP" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">NextStep</a> [wikipedia.org].  It didn't work out all that great either.</p><p>From a business point of view I understand why they are doing it the way they are, and I do appreciate that they (so far) haven't resorted to anything as absurd as Windows "Genuine Advantage" to keep it that way.  But I wish they would allow for the possibility of a small number of people hacking things together, even if it is officially unapproved, as long as they are buying an genuine OS license.  Tying it down to hardware or upping the OS price would be a pain if you do own Apple hardware.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
Other people have pointed out Apple 's attempt to license their OS to other hardware manufacturers and how badly that worked out .
And in a way , Apple ( or more precisely , Jobs ) has also experimented with selling the $ 400 " OS only " solution -- i.e .
NextStep [ wikipedia.org ] .
It did n't work out all that great either.From a business point of view I understand why they are doing it the way they are , and I do appreciate that they ( so far ) have n't resorted to anything as absurd as Windows " Genuine Advantage " to keep it that way .
But I wish they would allow for the possibility of a small number of people hacking things together , even if it is officially unapproved , as long as they are buying an genuine OS license .
Tying it down to hardware or upping the OS price would be a pain if you do own Apple hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
Other people have pointed out Apple's attempt to license their OS to other hardware manufacturers and how badly that worked out.
And in a way, Apple (or more precisely, Jobs) has also experimented with selling the $400 "OS only" solution -- i.e.
NextStep [wikipedia.org].
It didn't work out all that great either.From a business point of view I understand why they are doing it the way they are, and I do appreciate that they (so far) haven't resorted to anything as absurd as Windows "Genuine Advantage" to keep it that way.
But I wish they would allow for the possibility of a small number of people hacking things together, even if it is officially unapproved, as long as they are buying an genuine OS license.
Tying it down to hardware or upping the OS price would be a pain if you do own Apple hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960448</id>
	<title>Leave them alone will ya</title>
	<author>Edmund Blackadder</author>
	<datestamp>1257189000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is their software if they want it to make it not work on some processor, it is their right.</p><p>There are plenty of perfectly fine and free operating systems out there. I have no idea why people waste so much effort trying to cross port OSX when they can get linux and BSD for free.</p><p>I suppose those are the same people that go to new york to buy fake luis vutton purses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is their software if they want it to make it not work on some processor , it is their right.There are plenty of perfectly fine and free operating systems out there .
I have no idea why people waste so much effort trying to cross port OSX when they can get linux and BSD for free.I suppose those are the same people that go to new york to buy fake luis vutton purses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is their software if they want it to make it not work on some processor, it is their right.There are plenty of perfectly fine and free operating systems out there.
I have no idea why people waste so much effort trying to cross port OSX when they can get linux and BSD for free.I suppose those are the same people that go to new york to buy fake luis vutton purses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.30005318</id>
	<title>Oho</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257520740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I like apple.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I like apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like apple.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958684</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>ignavus</author>
	<datestamp>1257174660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...very good integration between the two.</p></div><p>By "very good" integration between hardware and software, do you mean deliberately crippling the software on hardware that could otherwise run it perfectly well?</p><p>Mac hardware is not mystically special. It is just expensive. You no more need Mac hardware to run MacOSX than you need a Rolls Royce to drive to the corner shop. Of course, you will need a Rolls Royce to get to the corner shop if there is an army of goons who will block your path unless you are driving a Rolls Royce. That is the "experience" that Apple is providing.</p><p>I think I will start selling books that you are only licensed to read if you are wearing my expensive brand of clothing. Oh, look. I can't, because I cannot physically enforce it. Apple gets away with artificially restricting their software because they can physically enforce it. It is simply an artificial revenue-maintenance restriction: it is anti-competitive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...very good integration between the two.By " very good " integration between hardware and software , do you mean deliberately crippling the software on hardware that could otherwise run it perfectly well ? Mac hardware is not mystically special .
It is just expensive .
You no more need Mac hardware to run MacOSX than you need a Rolls Royce to drive to the corner shop .
Of course , you will need a Rolls Royce to get to the corner shop if there is an army of goons who will block your path unless you are driving a Rolls Royce .
That is the " experience " that Apple is providing.I think I will start selling books that you are only licensed to read if you are wearing my expensive brand of clothing .
Oh , look .
I ca n't , because I can not physically enforce it .
Apple gets away with artificially restricting their software because they can physically enforce it .
It is simply an artificial revenue-maintenance restriction : it is anti-competitive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...very good integration between the two.By "very good" integration between hardware and software, do you mean deliberately crippling the software on hardware that could otherwise run it perfectly well?Mac hardware is not mystically special.
It is just expensive.
You no more need Mac hardware to run MacOSX than you need a Rolls Royce to drive to the corner shop.
Of course, you will need a Rolls Royce to get to the corner shop if there is an army of goons who will block your path unless you are driving a Rolls Royce.
That is the "experience" that Apple is providing.I think I will start selling books that you are only licensed to read if you are wearing my expensive brand of clothing.
Oh, look.
I can't, because I cannot physically enforce it.
Apple gets away with artificially restricting their software because they can physically enforce it.
It is simply an artificial revenue-maintenance restriction: it is anti-competitive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967126</id>
	<title>Re:There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way .</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1257281160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself. I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but <i>Apple is a hardware company</i> and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.</p></div><p>Here is why you are wrong.</p><p>First, they are not maximizing their hardware sales.  Their limited offerings cede huge swathes of the desktop and laptop markets to other manufacturers.  Why would a "hardware company" limit itself in this way?  Especially given the myriad versions of the iPod that they churn out -- clearly they have no concerns about supporting a large array of devices.</p><p>Second, speaking of that iPod, even if they are a (curiously unambitious) "hardware company", a lot of that hardware is in the form of music players &amp; smart phones which require Apple software running on something (at least for the maximum "experience").  That something can already be a non-Apple computer, and presumably they already have to support non-Apple computers running this software to some extent.  What sense does it make for a "hardware company" to sell entry-level peripherals that require their <i>software</i> which will likely to be installed on a competitors hardware because this "hardware" company offers no price-point-equivalent hardware of its own.</p><p>Apple is not a "hardware company".  They sell hardware, peripherals and software for non-Apple computers.  They pick and choose what they offer among those categories based on some internal logic that we may <i>assume</i> maximizes their profits.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on. Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they are not Apple customers.</p><p>They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers. They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model. Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.</p></div><p>Get over yourself.  You are not more an Apple customer than the snot-nosed kid with a first gen iPod Shuffle.</p><p>If you buy an iPod shuffle and sync it with iTunes on a $300 PC, how are you not an Apple customer?  How is Apple damaged by offering the option to run OSX on that  same box and get a better iTunes experience, and possibly a better overall impression of Apple products?</p><p>I can't figure out what their angle is other than rigging their offerings to milk the most money out of self-regarding suckers before it becomes too obvious to ignore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself .
I do n't know why this has to even be repeated , but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.Here is why you are wrong.First , they are not maximizing their hardware sales .
Their limited offerings cede huge swathes of the desktop and laptop markets to other manufacturers .
Why would a " hardware company " limit itself in this way ?
Especially given the myriad versions of the iPod that they churn out -- clearly they have no concerns about supporting a large array of devices.Second , speaking of that iPod , even if they are a ( curiously unambitious ) " hardware company " , a lot of that hardware is in the form of music players &amp; smart phones which require Apple software running on something ( at least for the maximum " experience " ) .
That something can already be a non-Apple computer , and presumably they already have to support non-Apple computers running this software to some extent .
What sense does it make for a " hardware company " to sell entry-level peripherals that require their software which will likely to be installed on a competitors hardware because this " hardware " company offers no price-point-equivalent hardware of its own.Apple is not a " hardware company " .
They sell hardware , peripherals and software for non-Apple computers .
They pick and choose what they offer among those categories based on some internal logic that we may assume maximizes their profits.None , of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years , lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in , you may notice , wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on .
Apparently , the natural conclusion goes right over their heads ... they are not Apple customers.They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers .
They are wrong ; that would make them Microsoft customers , because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS 's as it 's business model .
Go buy it ; there 's a snappy new version out right now , I hear.Get over yourself .
You are not more an Apple customer than the snot-nosed kid with a first gen iPod Shuffle.If you buy an iPod shuffle and sync it with iTunes on a $ 300 PC , how are you not an Apple customer ?
How is Apple damaged by offering the option to run OSX on that same box and get a better iTunes experience , and possibly a better overall impression of Apple products ? I ca n't figure out what their angle is other than rigging their offerings to milk the most money out of self-regarding suckers before it becomes too obvious to ignore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself.
I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.Here is why you are wrong.First, they are not maximizing their hardware sales.
Their limited offerings cede huge swathes of the desktop and laptop markets to other manufacturers.
Why would a "hardware company" limit itself in this way?
Especially given the myriad versions of the iPod that they churn out -- clearly they have no concerns about supporting a large array of devices.Second, speaking of that iPod, even if they are a (curiously unambitious) "hardware company", a lot of that hardware is in the form of music players &amp; smart phones which require Apple software running on something (at least for the maximum "experience").
That something can already be a non-Apple computer, and presumably they already have to support non-Apple computers running this software to some extent.
What sense does it make for a "hardware company" to sell entry-level peripherals that require their software which will likely to be installed on a competitors hardware because this "hardware" company offers no price-point-equivalent hardware of its own.Apple is not a "hardware company".
They sell hardware, peripherals and software for non-Apple computers.
They pick and choose what they offer among those categories based on some internal logic that we may assume maximizes their profits.None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on.
Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads ... they are not Apple customers.They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers.
They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model.
Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.Get over yourself.
You are not more an Apple customer than the snot-nosed kid with a first gen iPod Shuffle.If you buy an iPod shuffle and sync it with iTunes on a $300 PC, how are you not an Apple customer?
How is Apple damaged by offering the option to run OSX on that  same box and get a better iTunes experience, and possibly a better overall impression of Apple products?I can't figure out what their angle is other than rigging their offerings to milk the most money out of self-regarding suckers before it becomes too obvious to ignore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960196</id>
	<title>Re:No, not time for unbundling the software</title>
	<author>phillymjs</author>
	<datestamp>1257186480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...it'd probably just kill him if he found out someone hacked OSX onto some box then had volume control not work for instancce (I assume OSX has these problems just like any other OS...</i></p><p>Right now, building a Hackintosh is not unlike building a system to run NeXTStep back in the day... there's a list of supported (by OS X, not Apple) components to choose from, and you go from there. I just built one recently, and had to mess with a couple things to get everything working perfectly. Sound didn't work until I applied an edit to the DSDT (differentiated system description table) file for my motherboard, and added a custom kernel extension. I had to slightly edit an Apple kernel extension to get OS X to understand that my hard drives were internal and give them the appropriate icons. And I had to use a different ifconfig that can kick the network interface into promiscuous mode to get Bonjour networking to work.</p><p>I've got my Hackintosh set up so nearly all the "hacky" stuff is on a USB stick that has the EFI boot stuff OS X needs, the Chameleon bootloader, and the kernel extensions and stuff that fix the other issues. It's themed to look exactly like Boot Camp, and dual boots into Snow Leopard and Windows 7 (by default into OS X if I don't press a key to get the selection screen). The only thing it can't do is boot from a DVD, which as I understand it is a limitation of Chameleon that may one day be rectified, but booting from an 8GB USB key with the OS X install DVD copied onto it works great.</p><p>Putting it all together was pretty easy thanks to those who have gone before. I just had to do some googling, some downloading, some reading, and post a few questions on some forums when I got stuck.</p><p>If Apple ever does open up OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, I would guess they'd do much the same as NeXT did... you'd get a list of supported components to pick from, if you use something other than stuff on the list and get it to work, fine, but don't call Apple for help if you have problems.</p><p>~Philly</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...it 'd probably just kill him if he found out someone hacked OSX onto some box then had volume control not work for instancce ( I assume OSX has these problems just like any other OS...Right now , building a Hackintosh is not unlike building a system to run NeXTStep back in the day... there 's a list of supported ( by OS X , not Apple ) components to choose from , and you go from there .
I just built one recently , and had to mess with a couple things to get everything working perfectly .
Sound did n't work until I applied an edit to the DSDT ( differentiated system description table ) file for my motherboard , and added a custom kernel extension .
I had to slightly edit an Apple kernel extension to get OS X to understand that my hard drives were internal and give them the appropriate icons .
And I had to use a different ifconfig that can kick the network interface into promiscuous mode to get Bonjour networking to work.I 've got my Hackintosh set up so nearly all the " hacky " stuff is on a USB stick that has the EFI boot stuff OS X needs , the Chameleon bootloader , and the kernel extensions and stuff that fix the other issues .
It 's themed to look exactly like Boot Camp , and dual boots into Snow Leopard and Windows 7 ( by default into OS X if I do n't press a key to get the selection screen ) .
The only thing it ca n't do is boot from a DVD , which as I understand it is a limitation of Chameleon that may one day be rectified , but booting from an 8GB USB key with the OS X install DVD copied onto it works great.Putting it all together was pretty easy thanks to those who have gone before .
I just had to do some googling , some downloading , some reading , and post a few questions on some forums when I got stuck.If Apple ever does open up OS X to run on non-Apple hardware , I would guess they 'd do much the same as NeXT did... you 'd get a list of supported components to pick from , if you use something other than stuff on the list and get it to work , fine , but do n't call Apple for help if you have problems. ~ Philly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...it'd probably just kill him if he found out someone hacked OSX onto some box then had volume control not work for instancce (I assume OSX has these problems just like any other OS...Right now, building a Hackintosh is not unlike building a system to run NeXTStep back in the day... there's a list of supported (by OS X, not Apple) components to choose from, and you go from there.
I just built one recently, and had to mess with a couple things to get everything working perfectly.
Sound didn't work until I applied an edit to the DSDT (differentiated system description table) file for my motherboard, and added a custom kernel extension.
I had to slightly edit an Apple kernel extension to get OS X to understand that my hard drives were internal and give them the appropriate icons.
And I had to use a different ifconfig that can kick the network interface into promiscuous mode to get Bonjour networking to work.I've got my Hackintosh set up so nearly all the "hacky" stuff is on a USB stick that has the EFI boot stuff OS X needs, the Chameleon bootloader, and the kernel extensions and stuff that fix the other issues.
It's themed to look exactly like Boot Camp, and dual boots into Snow Leopard and Windows 7 (by default into OS X if I don't press a key to get the selection screen).
The only thing it can't do is boot from a DVD, which as I understand it is a limitation of Chameleon that may one day be rectified, but booting from an 8GB USB key with the OS X install DVD copied onto it works great.Putting it all together was pretty easy thanks to those who have gone before.
I just had to do some googling, some downloading, some reading, and post a few questions on some forums when I got stuck.If Apple ever does open up OS X to run on non-Apple hardware, I would guess they'd do much the same as NeXT did... you'd get a list of supported components to pick from, if you use something other than stuff on the list and get it to work, fine, but don't call Apple for help if you have problems.~Philly</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960434</id>
	<title>Re:Why continue to reward a company that does this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.</p></div></blockquote><p>Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer <i>and</i> think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...</p><p>apple probably won't notice.</p><p><i>but</i> if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...</p><p>still probably not notice.</p></div><p>But if the 40 people are bloggers, others will notice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Complaining about Apple will not hurt them , but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.Well , if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that did n't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...apple probably wo n't notice.but if all 40 of them come here and complain , then apple will...still probably not notice.But if the 40 people are bloggers , others will notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...apple probably won't notice.but if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...still probably not notice.But if the 40 people are bloggers, others will notice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961492</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257246600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the hell said Apple had to support it?! This isn't a move a that improves anybodies circumstances, except Apples. It does nothing for any of their customers, and in fact harms people who have bought legit copies of the Software and decided to make their own hardware solution.</p><p>This move doesn't even have the same moral defense they have against Psystar and other clone manufacturers. This isn't just about people who want to make money off Apple re-sales now. This is move against hobbyists, against legit customers who wanted to use their product a little differently to what it says on the box. This is the same as Nintendo blocking homebrew channels and as MS blocking 3rd party hard-drives.</p><p>I understand you over-reaction to Apple criticism given the average opinion of Apple on Slashdot - but this is NOT an action worth defending. Regardless of your love for the company - in fact <b>because</b> of your love for the company, open you eyes to what this move really means and let them know that its nothing but petty cruelty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the hell said Apple had to support it ? !
This is n't a move a that improves anybodies circumstances , except Apples .
It does nothing for any of their customers , and in fact harms people who have bought legit copies of the Software and decided to make their own hardware solution.This move does n't even have the same moral defense they have against Psystar and other clone manufacturers .
This is n't just about people who want to make money off Apple re-sales now .
This is move against hobbyists , against legit customers who wanted to use their product a little differently to what it says on the box .
This is the same as Nintendo blocking homebrew channels and as MS blocking 3rd party hard-drives.I understand you over-reaction to Apple criticism given the average opinion of Apple on Slashdot - but this is NOT an action worth defending .
Regardless of your love for the company - in fact because of your love for the company , open you eyes to what this move really means and let them know that its nothing but petty cruelty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the hell said Apple had to support it?!
This isn't a move a that improves anybodies circumstances, except Apples.
It does nothing for any of their customers, and in fact harms people who have bought legit copies of the Software and decided to make their own hardware solution.This move doesn't even have the same moral defense they have against Psystar and other clone manufacturers.
This isn't just about people who want to make money off Apple re-sales now.
This is move against hobbyists, against legit customers who wanted to use their product a little differently to what it says on the box.
This is the same as Nintendo blocking homebrew channels and as MS blocking 3rd party hard-drives.I understand you over-reaction to Apple criticism given the average opinion of Apple on Slashdot - but this is NOT an action worth defending.
Regardless of your love for the company - in fact because of your love for the company, open you eyes to what this move really means and let them know that its nothing but petty cruelty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961152</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a big difference between not supporting something and actively blocking it.</p><p>It does raise the question regarding selling a separate OSX License. It also raises the question regarding selling a netbook. If enough people are hackintoshing that Apple feel the need to actively block them there's obviously *some* kind of market there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a big difference between not supporting something and actively blocking it.It does raise the question regarding selling a separate OSX License .
It also raises the question regarding selling a netbook .
If enough people are hackintoshing that Apple feel the need to actively block them there 's obviously * some * kind of market there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a big difference between not supporting something and actively blocking it.It does raise the question regarding selling a separate OSX License.
It also raises the question regarding selling a netbook.
If enough people are hackintoshing that Apple feel the need to actively block them there's obviously *some* kind of market there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960840</id>
	<title>Re:Hackintosh as a Production Environment</title>
	<author>Per Wigren</author>
	<datestamp>1257279540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My main computer is a Hackintosh. It's a Core i7-920 (clocked at 3,2 Ghz) with 6 GB DDR3-1866 RAM, GeForce GTX 285 graphics, Intel X58 chipset, 2x1 TB HDD, a large 100\% aluminium case (ATCS 840, silver) and a 30" 2560x1600 monitor (HP LP3065). Running Snow Leopard on it and it works like a charm! Total price was around 1800 USD for the computer and 1130 USD for the monitor. This is in Sweden where prices on tech stuff are about 30\% higher than in the US on average.<br><br>I've used Linux as my primary desktop OS since 1996 (Red Hat 4.2) without dual-booting. I still run Linux (Arch) on my home server, which doubles as a XBMC HTPC. I have been using Macs at work for 5 years and I have learned to love how well it works for the non-nerdy stuff I occasionally have to deal with. I also want to create music and the offerings on MacOS X, although somewhat expensive, are on a whole other level than Linux.<br><br>The main reason are the non-nerdy friends/family/partner though. I always have several terminals running (even in MacOS X) and I do almost everything I do on the command line or in Firefox. I just grew tired that every time someone visited and brought a USB stick or some MP3 player I had to pray a little that it would work, or say "excuse me", bring up a terminal, restart some background process and issue some manual mount commands. All the obscure "look at this, lolz!" videos, flash games and java applets work. I can just say to a friend "please make a playlist while I make some food" and I can go and start make food without fear that some hanging java applet has locked the sound card so I must go there and help them.<br><br>It's the sum of the little things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My main computer is a Hackintosh .
It 's a Core i7-920 ( clocked at 3,2 Ghz ) with 6 GB DDR3-1866 RAM , GeForce GTX 285 graphics , Intel X58 chipset , 2x1 TB HDD , a large 100 \ % aluminium case ( ATCS 840 , silver ) and a 30 " 2560x1600 monitor ( HP LP3065 ) .
Running Snow Leopard on it and it works like a charm !
Total price was around 1800 USD for the computer and 1130 USD for the monitor .
This is in Sweden where prices on tech stuff are about 30 \ % higher than in the US on average.I 've used Linux as my primary desktop OS since 1996 ( Red Hat 4.2 ) without dual-booting .
I still run Linux ( Arch ) on my home server , which doubles as a XBMC HTPC .
I have been using Macs at work for 5 years and I have learned to love how well it works for the non-nerdy stuff I occasionally have to deal with .
I also want to create music and the offerings on MacOS X , although somewhat expensive , are on a whole other level than Linux.The main reason are the non-nerdy friends/family/partner though .
I always have several terminals running ( even in MacOS X ) and I do almost everything I do on the command line or in Firefox .
I just grew tired that every time someone visited and brought a USB stick or some MP3 player I had to pray a little that it would work , or say " excuse me " , bring up a terminal , restart some background process and issue some manual mount commands .
All the obscure " look at this , lolz !
" videos , flash games and java applets work .
I can just say to a friend " please make a playlist while I make some food " and I can go and start make food without fear that some hanging java applet has locked the sound card so I must go there and help them.It 's the sum of the little things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My main computer is a Hackintosh.
It's a Core i7-920 (clocked at 3,2 Ghz) with 6 GB DDR3-1866 RAM, GeForce GTX 285 graphics, Intel X58 chipset, 2x1 TB HDD, a large 100\% aluminium case (ATCS 840, silver) and a 30" 2560x1600 monitor (HP LP3065).
Running Snow Leopard on it and it works like a charm!
Total price was around 1800 USD for the computer and 1130 USD for the monitor.
This is in Sweden where prices on tech stuff are about 30\% higher than in the US on average.I've used Linux as my primary desktop OS since 1996 (Red Hat 4.2) without dual-booting.
I still run Linux (Arch) on my home server, which doubles as a XBMC HTPC.
I have been using Macs at work for 5 years and I have learned to love how well it works for the non-nerdy stuff I occasionally have to deal with.
I also want to create music and the offerings on MacOS X, although somewhat expensive, are on a whole other level than Linux.The main reason are the non-nerdy friends/family/partner though.
I always have several terminals running (even in MacOS X) and I do almost everything I do on the command line or in Firefox.
I just grew tired that every time someone visited and brought a USB stick or some MP3 player I had to pray a little that it would work, or say "excuse me", bring up a terminal, restart some background process and issue some manual mount commands.
All the obscure "look at this, lolz!
" videos, flash games and java applets work.
I can just say to a friend "please make a playlist while I make some food" and I can go and start make food without fear that some hanging java applet has locked the sound card so I must go there and help them.It's the sum of the little things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957290</id>
	<title>"Apple Labeled" License Compliance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its hardly been tested in court, but it'd seem that my Dell Mini 9 with an apple sticker on the back qualifies as an "Apple Labeled Computer", especially since the apple sticker came from apple and shipped with my macbook pro.</p><p>This would satisfy the EULA agreement for OS X versions 10.5 and lower. They changed the wording in the 10.6 agreement to be "Apple Branded," which makes it a bit more difficult for a non-apple machine to qualify. That said, it all comes down to how you define "labeled" and "branded"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its hardly been tested in court , but it 'd seem that my Dell Mini 9 with an apple sticker on the back qualifies as an " Apple Labeled Computer " , especially since the apple sticker came from apple and shipped with my macbook pro.This would satisfy the EULA agreement for OS X versions 10.5 and lower .
They changed the wording in the 10.6 agreement to be " Apple Branded , " which makes it a bit more difficult for a non-apple machine to qualify .
That said , it all comes down to how you define " labeled " and " branded " ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its hardly been tested in court, but it'd seem that my Dell Mini 9 with an apple sticker on the back qualifies as an "Apple Labeled Computer", especially since the apple sticker came from apple and shipped with my macbook pro.This would satisfy the EULA agreement for OS X versions 10.5 and lower.
They changed the wording in the 10.6 agreement to be "Apple Branded," which makes it a bit more difficult for a non-apple machine to qualify.
That said, it all comes down to how you define "labeled" and "branded" ;-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962732</id>
	<title>Boo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257259680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Think of microsoft as Jupiter and apple as earth. Earth is a much nicer place to be, but you need the giant's gravity to attract the crap away from hitting earth. If everyone starts using osx on any old pc, then it will be as vulnerable as Microsoft, just the Same as is starting to happen to the linux's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Think of microsoft as Jupiter and apple as earth .
Earth is a much nicer place to be , but you need the giant 's gravity to attract the crap away from hitting earth .
If everyone starts using osx on any old pc , then it will be as vulnerable as Microsoft , just the Same as is starting to happen to the linux 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think of microsoft as Jupiter and apple as earth.
Earth is a much nicer place to be, but you need the giant's gravity to attract the crap away from hitting earth.
If everyone starts using osx on any old pc, then it will be as vulnerable as Microsoft, just the Same as is starting to happen to the linux's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957382</id>
	<title>Who cares?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is for faggots anyway. Keep sucking that shit out of faggot asses you faggot mac users. i'll laugh when you get aids and die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is for faggots anyway .
Keep sucking that shit out of faggot asses you faggot mac users .
i 'll laugh when you get aids and die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is for faggots anyway.
Keep sucking that shit out of faggot asses you faggot mac users.
i'll laugh when you get aids and die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962152</id>
	<title>Apple and Netbooks...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257254580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple should just license the VersaPro UltraLite VS from NEC. This Japan market only netbook has a 1.86GHz Atom, a 64GB Toshiba SSD, a 1280x728 resolution 10.1" screen and a chassis capable of withstanding a drop of 78cm and 150kg of weight. This thing is 720g in weight including the battery and assembled in Japan. It's not cheap but Apple could develop something like this and sell it for a similar price. It beats Apple MB(P) build quality. I'd happily pay extra over the $125,000 Yen price, I paid for it, if Apple sold it with OSX. It wouldn't even cannibalise their other sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple should just license the VersaPro UltraLite VS from NEC .
This Japan market only netbook has a 1.86GHz Atom , a 64GB Toshiba SSD , a 1280x728 resolution 10.1 " screen and a chassis capable of withstanding a drop of 78cm and 150kg of weight .
This thing is 720g in weight including the battery and assembled in Japan .
It 's not cheap but Apple could develop something like this and sell it for a similar price .
It beats Apple MB ( P ) build quality .
I 'd happily pay extra over the $ 125,000 Yen price , I paid for it , if Apple sold it with OSX .
It would n't even cannibalise their other sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple should just license the VersaPro UltraLite VS from NEC.
This Japan market only netbook has a 1.86GHz Atom, a 64GB Toshiba SSD, a 1280x728 resolution 10.1" screen and a chassis capable of withstanding a drop of 78cm and 150kg of weight.
This thing is 720g in weight including the battery and assembled in Japan.
It's not cheap but Apple could develop something like this and sell it for a similar price.
It beats Apple MB(P) build quality.
I'd happily pay extra over the $125,000 Yen price, I paid for it, if Apple sold it with OSX.
It wouldn't even cannibalise their other sales.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958524</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>failedlogic</author>
	<datestamp>1257173760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been reading some of the posts on other websites as well as Slashdot on the subject of the Hackintoshes and the new Atom Processor restriction.</p><p>There are several themes that come up in opposition to Apple's practices. Some of these arguments are they can't enforce the EULA after sale even when you can't read EULA at time of sale. This they say is a restriction of sale. And the second is  that hardware is Apple's main source of profit and it is within Apple's interest to stay profitable (duh!).</p><p>Printers seem to have(had) the same type of restriction. Buy the printer at a loss for the manufacturer only to buy their expensive refills to help them stay profitable. Now some of the printer manufacturers were preventing consumers from buying recycled or refilled cartridges (through HW and SW). If I recall major printer manufacturers lost a lawsuit over this restriction. Apple is also using this type of EULA and HW/SW restriction.</p><p>Another theme is that if you Hackintosh, you're robbing Apple's coffers. Take too much away and they won't be able to afford or justify developing OSX. So if you like Apple you should pay full price for OSX and a Mac and fill their piggy banks. Now if you're a good Apple consumer you've already bought a Mac (so Apple makes a profit from you) and in buying Snow Leopard you're keeping them in the green because you already bought their HW.</p><p>I think a good counterargument to this is game consoles. Console makers generally sell their hardware at a loss to later recoup in software sales and merchandise. So, if you really like your console you should at least buy enough games for the manufacturer to turn a profit. Except that in Nintendo's case many are just buying Wii one or two games and that's it. Nintendo is losing money. Ditto Sony if some people are only buying the PS3 as a (cheap) Blu-Ray player.</p><p>So I'd ask to clarify,<br>How is the hackintosh different, legally, that the restrictions the printer manufacturers tried to impose on consumers? You don't agree to buy, in the future, that manufacturers' toner at the time of purchase.</p><p>And if the argument by Apple is to protect their profit margins, then how is this any different then the game console argument? Consumers only want access to what they want they (probably) don't care if the company stays profitable. Seems like a fair rule of the markets and Capitalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading some of the posts on other websites as well as Slashdot on the subject of the Hackintoshes and the new Atom Processor restriction.There are several themes that come up in opposition to Apple 's practices .
Some of these arguments are they ca n't enforce the EULA after sale even when you ca n't read EULA at time of sale .
This they say is a restriction of sale .
And the second is that hardware is Apple 's main source of profit and it is within Apple 's interest to stay profitable ( duh !
) .Printers seem to have ( had ) the same type of restriction .
Buy the printer at a loss for the manufacturer only to buy their expensive refills to help them stay profitable .
Now some of the printer manufacturers were preventing consumers from buying recycled or refilled cartridges ( through HW and SW ) .
If I recall major printer manufacturers lost a lawsuit over this restriction .
Apple is also using this type of EULA and HW/SW restriction.Another theme is that if you Hackintosh , you 're robbing Apple 's coffers .
Take too much away and they wo n't be able to afford or justify developing OSX .
So if you like Apple you should pay full price for OSX and a Mac and fill their piggy banks .
Now if you 're a good Apple consumer you 've already bought a Mac ( so Apple makes a profit from you ) and in buying Snow Leopard you 're keeping them in the green because you already bought their HW.I think a good counterargument to this is game consoles .
Console makers generally sell their hardware at a loss to later recoup in software sales and merchandise .
So , if you really like your console you should at least buy enough games for the manufacturer to turn a profit .
Except that in Nintendo 's case many are just buying Wii one or two games and that 's it .
Nintendo is losing money .
Ditto Sony if some people are only buying the PS3 as a ( cheap ) Blu-Ray player.So I 'd ask to clarify,How is the hackintosh different , legally , that the restrictions the printer manufacturers tried to impose on consumers ?
You do n't agree to buy , in the future , that manufacturers ' toner at the time of purchase.And if the argument by Apple is to protect their profit margins , then how is this any different then the game console argument ?
Consumers only want access to what they want they ( probably ) do n't care if the company stays profitable .
Seems like a fair rule of the markets and Capitalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading some of the posts on other websites as well as Slashdot on the subject of the Hackintoshes and the new Atom Processor restriction.There are several themes that come up in opposition to Apple's practices.
Some of these arguments are they can't enforce the EULA after sale even when you can't read EULA at time of sale.
This they say is a restriction of sale.
And the second is  that hardware is Apple's main source of profit and it is within Apple's interest to stay profitable (duh!
).Printers seem to have(had) the same type of restriction.
Buy the printer at a loss for the manufacturer only to buy their expensive refills to help them stay profitable.
Now some of the printer manufacturers were preventing consumers from buying recycled or refilled cartridges (through HW and SW).
If I recall major printer manufacturers lost a lawsuit over this restriction.
Apple is also using this type of EULA and HW/SW restriction.Another theme is that if you Hackintosh, you're robbing Apple's coffers.
Take too much away and they won't be able to afford or justify developing OSX.
So if you like Apple you should pay full price for OSX and a Mac and fill their piggy banks.
Now if you're a good Apple consumer you've already bought a Mac (so Apple makes a profit from you) and in buying Snow Leopard you're keeping them in the green because you already bought their HW.I think a good counterargument to this is game consoles.
Console makers generally sell their hardware at a loss to later recoup in software sales and merchandise.
So, if you really like your console you should at least buy enough games for the manufacturer to turn a profit.
Except that in Nintendo's case many are just buying Wii one or two games and that's it.
Nintendo is losing money.
Ditto Sony if some people are only buying the PS3 as a (cheap) Blu-Ray player.So I'd ask to clarify,How is the hackintosh different, legally, that the restrictions the printer manufacturers tried to impose on consumers?
You don't agree to buy, in the future, that manufacturers' toner at the time of purchase.And if the argument by Apple is to protect their profit margins, then how is this any different then the game console argument?
Consumers only want access to what they want they (probably) don't care if the company stays profitable.
Seems like a fair rule of the markets and Capitalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959992</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Falconhell</author>
	<datestamp>1257184680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeh sure. I buy lots of laptops for work these days. A hundred or so this year.</p><p>I would not trade my current Dell E6400for any Mac(ASUS really)laptop.</p><p>You cant get a processor this fast in a Mac at all. You can only get a Mac with a processor 2 levels of clock speed slower-and  costs 30\% more for the same spec otherwise.</p><p>My current Dell hibernates and resumes in less than 20 seconds for each. If you cant get a windows laptop to go to sleep in less than a minute you should hand in your geek card.</p><p>In fact a Mac is probably just the thing for you, particularly if you find computers a pleasure (as I have noted before thats why Apple round the corners, so it hurts less when you stick them where the sun dont shine).  (-:</p><p>You need to get out more, to me computers are a tool and nothing more-after 30 years as a hardware tech, I have seen lots of cool tech come and go, and I simply choose the most cost effective tool to do the job reliably.</p><p>Nearly every post I have made in the past that does not follow the Apple fanboy line gets modded down, but its not OK to say so apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeh sure .
I buy lots of laptops for work these days .
A hundred or so this year.I would not trade my current Dell E6400for any Mac ( ASUS really ) laptop.You cant get a processor this fast in a Mac at all .
You can only get a Mac with a processor 2 levels of clock speed slower-and costs 30 \ % more for the same spec otherwise.My current Dell hibernates and resumes in less than 20 seconds for each .
If you cant get a windows laptop to go to sleep in less than a minute you should hand in your geek card.In fact a Mac is probably just the thing for you , particularly if you find computers a pleasure ( as I have noted before thats why Apple round the corners , so it hurts less when you stick them where the sun dont shine ) .
( - : You need to get out more , to me computers are a tool and nothing more-after 30 years as a hardware tech , I have seen lots of cool tech come and go , and I simply choose the most cost effective tool to do the job reliably.Nearly every post I have made in the past that does not follow the Apple fanboy line gets modded down , but its not OK to say so apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeh sure.
I buy lots of laptops for work these days.
A hundred or so this year.I would not trade my current Dell E6400for any Mac(ASUS really)laptop.You cant get a processor this fast in a Mac at all.
You can only get a Mac with a processor 2 levels of clock speed slower-and  costs 30\% more for the same spec otherwise.My current Dell hibernates and resumes in less than 20 seconds for each.
If you cant get a windows laptop to go to sleep in less than a minute you should hand in your geek card.In fact a Mac is probably just the thing for you, particularly if you find computers a pleasure (as I have noted before thats why Apple round the corners, so it hurts less when you stick them where the sun dont shine).
(-:You need to get out more, to me computers are a tool and nothing more-after 30 years as a hardware tech, I have seen lots of cool tech come and go, and I simply choose the most cost effective tool to do the job reliably.Nearly every post I have made in the past that does not follow the Apple fanboy line gets modded down, but its not OK to say so apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961760</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>kanazir</author>
	<datestamp>1257249960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Use Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Use Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the vastly overpriced bit. I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardware, and no one as of yet has come up with something as well put together and stylish and sturdy or classy as Macbook Pro, or Mac Pro at ANY price.</p><p>Even if I were in a market for Windows laptop, I would still buy a Macbook Pro. I don't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PC. But, on the other hand, overall user experience is completely different in OS X and coupled with Apple hardware is quite a pleasant experience. As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed my computer so much as my current Mac Pro (perhaps when I was a child and had an Amiga), and that tells you something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the vastly overpriced bit .
I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardware , and no one as of yet has come up with something as well put together and stylish and sturdy or classy as Macbook Pro , or Mac Pro at ANY price.Even if I were in a market for Windows laptop , I would still buy a Macbook Pro .
I do n't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PC .
But , on the other hand , overall user experience is completely different in OS X and coupled with Apple hardware is quite a pleasant experience .
As a matter of fact , I ca n't remember the last time I enjoyed my computer so much as my current Mac Pro ( perhaps when I was a child and had an Amiga ) , and that tells you something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the vastly overpriced bit.
I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardware, and no one as of yet has come up with something as well put together and stylish and sturdy or classy as Macbook Pro, or Mac Pro at ANY price.Even if I were in a market for Windows laptop, I would still buy a Macbook Pro.
I don't know of a single Mac specific application on the other hand that would make me choose mac over PC.
But, on the other hand, overall user experience is completely different in OS X and coupled with Apple hardware is quite a pleasant experience.
As a matter of fact, I can't remember the last time I enjoyed my computer so much as my current Mac Pro (perhaps when I was a child and had an Amiga), and that tells you something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958224</id>
	<title>Re:Mac OS X for generic machines.</title>
	<author>prockcore</author>
	<datestamp>1257172260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.</p></div></blockquote><p>This gets said a lot, but is it really true?  Ask any Apple user what they think of John Scully, and they'll spit on your shoes... yet Scully raised Apple's sales from $800 million to $8 billion.</p><p>Who is to say that licensing Mac OS didn't save the company?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have licensed Mac OS before , so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.This gets said a lot , but is it really true ?
Ask any Apple user what they think of John Scully , and they 'll spit on your shoes... yet Scully raised Apple 's sales from $ 800 million to $ 8 billion.Who is to say that licensing Mac OS did n't save the company ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.This gets said a lot, but is it really true?
Ask any Apple user what they think of John Scully, and they'll spit on your shoes... yet Scully raised Apple's sales from $800 million to $8 billion.Who is to say that licensing Mac OS didn't save the company?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960044</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1257185040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>They <b>blocked</b> hardware - in this case, the Atom processor. That's not the same as "stop the support" of the hardware. They went out of their way to make sure it didn't work. That's different from dropping drivers or support.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They blocked hardware - in this case , the Atom processor .
That 's not the same as " stop the support " of the hardware .
They went out of their way to make sure it did n't work .
That 's different from dropping drivers or support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They blocked hardware - in this case, the Atom processor.
That's not the same as "stop the support" of the hardware.
They went out of their way to make sure it didn't work.
That's different from dropping drivers or support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961442</id>
	<title>It just means Apple will launch atom based hw soon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257245640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's just an indication that Apple is preparing some special build of MacOS X for an Atom based hardware piece. And to prevent stupid users from unwillingly using the installation DVDs of their 'regular mac' to install/restore onto it.</p><p>So the rumors of Apple launching a netbook become even more realistic...</p><p>But it's true; Apple still thinks it's in the seventies and is making the same closed-world mistake as it did with the original Apple, Apple II and Mac; paving the road for the inferior products of Microsoft, just because they were more open (as in hardware).</p><p>Personally, I've thrown away my iPhone after being frustrated with the latest version of the iPhone OS (crashes too much and removes tethering functionality in Belgium where I live, even while the provider doesn't ask to block that). And I'm very happy with my 16gb-sd-card, battery-removable, facebook-integrated, fully customisable, android based HTC Hero phone. It feels like the future.</p><p>Apple could have done something revolutionary if they had build MacOS X upon the Linux kernel. The still can if they OpenSource Carbon/Cocoa. But they might find theirselves out-innovated quickly by the openness of our world otherwise. No signs for that yet on the financial side, but technologically, I'd put more money on Canonical and Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's just an indication that Apple is preparing some special build of MacOS X for an Atom based hardware piece .
And to prevent stupid users from unwillingly using the installation DVDs of their 'regular mac ' to install/restore onto it.So the rumors of Apple launching a netbook become even more realistic...But it 's true ; Apple still thinks it 's in the seventies and is making the same closed-world mistake as it did with the original Apple , Apple II and Mac ; paving the road for the inferior products of Microsoft , just because they were more open ( as in hardware ) .Personally , I 've thrown away my iPhone after being frustrated with the latest version of the iPhone OS ( crashes too much and removes tethering functionality in Belgium where I live , even while the provider does n't ask to block that ) .
And I 'm very happy with my 16gb-sd-card , battery-removable , facebook-integrated , fully customisable , android based HTC Hero phone .
It feels like the future.Apple could have done something revolutionary if they had build MacOS X upon the Linux kernel .
The still can if they OpenSource Carbon/Cocoa .
But they might find theirselves out-innovated quickly by the openness of our world otherwise .
No signs for that yet on the financial side , but technologically , I 'd put more money on Canonical and Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's just an indication that Apple is preparing some special build of MacOS X for an Atom based hardware piece.
And to prevent stupid users from unwillingly using the installation DVDs of their 'regular mac' to install/restore onto it.So the rumors of Apple launching a netbook become even more realistic...But it's true; Apple still thinks it's in the seventies and is making the same closed-world mistake as it did with the original Apple, Apple II and Mac; paving the road for the inferior products of Microsoft, just because they were more open (as in hardware).Personally, I've thrown away my iPhone after being frustrated with the latest version of the iPhone OS (crashes too much and removes tethering functionality in Belgium where I live, even while the provider doesn't ask to block that).
And I'm very happy with my 16gb-sd-card, battery-removable, facebook-integrated, fully customisable, android based HTC Hero phone.
It feels like the future.Apple could have done something revolutionary if they had build MacOS X upon the Linux kernel.
The still can if they OpenSource Carbon/Cocoa.
But they might find theirselves out-innovated quickly by the openness of our world otherwise.
No signs for that yet on the financial side, but technologically, I'd put more money on Canonical and Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29976352</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256993580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is not a software company, it's a hardware+software company - this is their business model. Expecting them to license Mac OS X for non-Apple hardware is like asking a home owner to sell the windows &amp; doors separately from the rest of the house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is not a software company , it 's a hardware + software company - this is their business model .
Expecting them to license Mac OS X for non-Apple hardware is like asking a home owner to sell the windows &amp; doors separately from the rest of the house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is not a software company, it's a hardware+software company - this is their business model.
Expecting them to license Mac OS X for non-Apple hardware is like asking a home owner to sell the windows &amp; doors separately from the rest of the house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957348</id>
	<title>Apples market</title>
	<author>owlstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257168300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apples market has been Apple hardware and software only for as long as I have known it. Sure, there are software applications and services that got so popular that even Apple caved in on this principle (e.g. their movie player and multimedia applications). There were some licensed manufacturers of Apple hardware as well, but even that did not please Apple.</p><p>And after having literally tens to hundreds of issues with Linux on PC hardware one can see why. Currently my Lenovo SL300 laptop does not play nice with the screen settings because somewhere the hardware/firmware does not keep to specs. It's one of those hundreds of PITA's that will you get when you couple "generic" hardware with an unsuspecting OS.</p><p>Apple selling OSX to non-Apple hardware? They will go bust if they go that path now. If only because current consumer PC's have been tested for one OS family only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apples market has been Apple hardware and software only for as long as I have known it .
Sure , there are software applications and services that got so popular that even Apple caved in on this principle ( e.g .
their movie player and multimedia applications ) .
There were some licensed manufacturers of Apple hardware as well , but even that did not please Apple.And after having literally tens to hundreds of issues with Linux on PC hardware one can see why .
Currently my Lenovo SL300 laptop does not play nice with the screen settings because somewhere the hardware/firmware does not keep to specs .
It 's one of those hundreds of PITA 's that will you get when you couple " generic " hardware with an unsuspecting OS.Apple selling OSX to non-Apple hardware ?
They will go bust if they go that path now .
If only because current consumer PC 's have been tested for one OS family only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apples market has been Apple hardware and software only for as long as I have known it.
Sure, there are software applications and services that got so popular that even Apple caved in on this principle (e.g.
their movie player and multimedia applications).
There were some licensed manufacturers of Apple hardware as well, but even that did not please Apple.And after having literally tens to hundreds of issues with Linux on PC hardware one can see why.
Currently my Lenovo SL300 laptop does not play nice with the screen settings because somewhere the hardware/firmware does not keep to specs.
It's one of those hundreds of PITA's that will you get when you couple "generic" hardware with an unsuspecting OS.Apple selling OSX to non-Apple hardware?
They will go bust if they go that path now.
If only because current consumer PC's have been tested for one OS family only.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957696</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>pseudonomous</author>
	<datestamp>1257169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, it is that different; it's the difference between having something that isn't that bad to carry around if you know you'll need it, and something that you just take with on the off chance you'll want to use it.  The Macbook Air is almost as portable a netbook (and prettier, w/ a better processor &amp; display, but less peripheral ports, and no integrated wired networking) and about five times as expensive as basic model Mini 10v, Wind, or Apire One.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , it is that different ; it 's the difference between having something that is n't that bad to carry around if you know you 'll need it , and something that you just take with on the off chance you 'll want to use it .
The Macbook Air is almost as portable a netbook ( and prettier , w/ a better processor &amp; display , but less peripheral ports , and no integrated wired networking ) and about five times as expensive as basic model Mini 10v , Wind , or Apire One .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, it is that different; it's the difference between having something that isn't that bad to carry around if you know you'll need it, and something that you just take with on the off chance you'll want to use it.
The Macbook Air is almost as portable a netbook (and prettier, w/ a better processor &amp; display, but less peripheral ports, and no integrated wired networking) and about five times as expensive as basic model Mini 10v, Wind, or Apire One.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963214</id>
	<title>Jobs is Grand Moff Tarkin</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257262500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I keep getting the mental image of Steve Jobs as Grand Moff Tarkin, being spoken to by Princess Leia.  <b>"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers"</b> <br>The Hackintosh crowd is like Princess Leia.  They are hot, sexy, rebellious, and know that they are on the side of what is good and right.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I keep getting the mental image of Steve Jobs as Grand Moff Tarkin , being spoken to by Princess Leia .
" The more you tighten your grip , Tarkin , the more star systems will slip through your fingers " The Hackintosh crowd is like Princess Leia .
They are hot , sexy , rebellious , and know that they are on the side of what is good and right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I keep getting the mental image of Steve Jobs as Grand Moff Tarkin, being spoken to by Princess Leia.
"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" The Hackintosh crowd is like Princess Leia.
They are hot, sexy, rebellious, and know that they are on the side of what is good and right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29974994</id>
	<title>Apple will *never* release Mac OS X...</title>
	<author>Cannelloni</author>
	<datestamp>1256979720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...for hackintoshes, period. If you want to run Mac OS X and Mac applications properly, you can just buy an Apple machine. Apple will not likely give away it's crown jewels to some cheap-ass laptop maker.  Why is this so hard to understand? I mean people have been posing the same old question since 1984. Apple is, and has always been, the Mac OS (or, originally, the System), bundled software and hardware that's extremely tightly integrated with the software, and this will *never* change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...for hackintoshes , period .
If you want to run Mac OS X and Mac applications properly , you can just buy an Apple machine .
Apple will not likely give away it 's crown jewels to some cheap-ass laptop maker .
Why is this so hard to understand ?
I mean people have been posing the same old question since 1984 .
Apple is , and has always been , the Mac OS ( or , originally , the System ) , bundled software and hardware that 's extremely tightly integrated with the software , and this will * never * change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...for hackintoshes, period.
If you want to run Mac OS X and Mac applications properly, you can just buy an Apple machine.
Apple will not likely give away it's crown jewels to some cheap-ass laptop maker.
Why is this so hard to understand?
I mean people have been posing the same old question since 1984.
Apple is, and has always been, the Mac OS (or, originally, the System), bundled software and hardware that's extremely tightly integrated with the software, and this will *never* change.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961476</id>
	<title>Shocking news: PowerPC CPUs not supported either</title>
	<author>AttilaSz</author>
	<datestamp>1257246300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, you think you have it bad that your Atom Hackintosh will forever stay on 10.6.1?</p><p>Guess what, my PowerPC *genuine* Mac will forever stay on 10.5.8.</p><p>Apple is often not supportive even of older hardware they sold few years ago.</p><p>Examples:</p><p>As mentioned, Mac OS X 10.6.0 doesn't support the PowerPC CPUs while the 10.5.x did. I have a fairly strong (even by today's standards), last generation G5 PowerPC Mac that I bought in December 2005 (one month before they confirmed the Intel switchover rumors) that is now doomed to never run Snow Leopard. I could now go around and holler "APPLE BASTARDS BLOCKED PowerPC IN 10.6.0", right?</p><p>Or I could be annoyed by the fact that even when Leopard came out, PPC experience was already "downscaled" compared to Intel Leopard - i.e. no Java 6, no support for certain HD video codecs, etc.</p><p>Heck, not even Macs with 32-bit Intel CPUs could have Java 6 under Leopard. Curiously, they do in Snow Leopard, but I digress.</p><p>Recent news was that on some older (2006) Intel Mac models (some of them already 64-bit), you won't be able to install Windows 7 via BootCamp. (This one I don't care much about, but some people certainly will.)</p><p>As you can see, even their own hardware gets left in the dust. I'm not ruling out deliberate malice on their part, but I'd rather assume they recompiled the kernel and libraries with compiler options that benefit their current CPU lineup the most, and it turned out to be incompatible with Atom, and they shrugged and said, "so what? We aren't supporting any hardware with Atom CPU anyway". Even if they did it deliberately, they can just claim that they did it as an effort to optimize performance for their current hardware.</p><p>At the end of the day, there's many more Hackintoshes out there than just Atom-CPU based ones, why would they go after specifically after the Atom ones? Those aren't even competition to Apple's hardware business - Apple doesn't have a netbook offering, and they don't consider MacBook Air to be one. People buying a netbook aren't a market Apple targets.</p><p>So, I think it's much more plausible that end of (accidentally working until now) Atom support is being a collateral effect of them doing some improvements. However, if it's not deeply baked in, then I'm sure the Hackintosh crowd will manage to get around it.</p><p>In any case, they have much better chances of it than me seeing Snow Leopard on my PowerPC Mac.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , you think you have it bad that your Atom Hackintosh will forever stay on 10.6.1 ? Guess what , my PowerPC * genuine * Mac will forever stay on 10.5.8.Apple is often not supportive even of older hardware they sold few years ago.Examples : As mentioned , Mac OS X 10.6.0 does n't support the PowerPC CPUs while the 10.5.x did .
I have a fairly strong ( even by today 's standards ) , last generation G5 PowerPC Mac that I bought in December 2005 ( one month before they confirmed the Intel switchover rumors ) that is now doomed to never run Snow Leopard .
I could now go around and holler " APPLE BASTARDS BLOCKED PowerPC IN 10.6.0 " , right ? Or I could be annoyed by the fact that even when Leopard came out , PPC experience was already " downscaled " compared to Intel Leopard - i.e .
no Java 6 , no support for certain HD video codecs , etc.Heck , not even Macs with 32-bit Intel CPUs could have Java 6 under Leopard .
Curiously , they do in Snow Leopard , but I digress.Recent news was that on some older ( 2006 ) Intel Mac models ( some of them already 64-bit ) , you wo n't be able to install Windows 7 via BootCamp .
( This one I do n't care much about , but some people certainly will .
) As you can see , even their own hardware gets left in the dust .
I 'm not ruling out deliberate malice on their part , but I 'd rather assume they recompiled the kernel and libraries with compiler options that benefit their current CPU lineup the most , and it turned out to be incompatible with Atom , and they shrugged and said , " so what ?
We are n't supporting any hardware with Atom CPU anyway " .
Even if they did it deliberately , they can just claim that they did it as an effort to optimize performance for their current hardware.At the end of the day , there 's many more Hackintoshes out there than just Atom-CPU based ones , why would they go after specifically after the Atom ones ?
Those are n't even competition to Apple 's hardware business - Apple does n't have a netbook offering , and they do n't consider MacBook Air to be one .
People buying a netbook are n't a market Apple targets.So , I think it 's much more plausible that end of ( accidentally working until now ) Atom support is being a collateral effect of them doing some improvements .
However , if it 's not deeply baked in , then I 'm sure the Hackintosh crowd will manage to get around it.In any case , they have much better chances of it than me seeing Snow Leopard on my PowerPC Mac .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, you think you have it bad that your Atom Hackintosh will forever stay on 10.6.1?Guess what, my PowerPC *genuine* Mac will forever stay on 10.5.8.Apple is often not supportive even of older hardware they sold few years ago.Examples:As mentioned, Mac OS X 10.6.0 doesn't support the PowerPC CPUs while the 10.5.x did.
I have a fairly strong (even by today's standards), last generation G5 PowerPC Mac that I bought in December 2005 (one month before they confirmed the Intel switchover rumors) that is now doomed to never run Snow Leopard.
I could now go around and holler "APPLE BASTARDS BLOCKED PowerPC IN 10.6.0", right?Or I could be annoyed by the fact that even when Leopard came out, PPC experience was already "downscaled" compared to Intel Leopard - i.e.
no Java 6, no support for certain HD video codecs, etc.Heck, not even Macs with 32-bit Intel CPUs could have Java 6 under Leopard.
Curiously, they do in Snow Leopard, but I digress.Recent news was that on some older (2006) Intel Mac models (some of them already 64-bit), you won't be able to install Windows 7 via BootCamp.
(This one I don't care much about, but some people certainly will.
)As you can see, even their own hardware gets left in the dust.
I'm not ruling out deliberate malice on their part, but I'd rather assume they recompiled the kernel and libraries with compiler options that benefit their current CPU lineup the most, and it turned out to be incompatible with Atom, and they shrugged and said, "so what?
We aren't supporting any hardware with Atom CPU anyway".
Even if they did it deliberately, they can just claim that they did it as an effort to optimize performance for their current hardware.At the end of the day, there's many more Hackintoshes out there than just Atom-CPU based ones, why would they go after specifically after the Atom ones?
Those aren't even competition to Apple's hardware business - Apple doesn't have a netbook offering, and they don't consider MacBook Air to be one.
People buying a netbook aren't a market Apple targets.So, I think it's much more plausible that end of (accidentally working until now) Atom support is being a collateral effect of them doing some improvements.
However, if it's not deeply baked in, then I'm sure the Hackintosh crowd will manage to get around it.In any case, they have much better chances of it than me seeing Snow Leopard on my PowerPC Mac.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256</id>
	<title>There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way ....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself. I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but <i>Apple is a hardware company</i> and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.</p><p>None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on. Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they are not Apple customers.</p><p>They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers. They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model. Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.</p><p>People buy Apple hardware because of the software. This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now. You would think it would sink in at some point.</p><p>Now, for those who get OSX to run on whatever hardware they manage to get it to run on, why the uproar over the Atom? Aren't you guys supposed to be <i>hackers</i>?</p><p>Go hack. Half the fun, (for some <i>all the fun</i>) isn't running the software, it is figuring out how to get the software to do what you want.</p><p>If they're not hackers, but they want a pre-made boxed solution to their own pet OSX on x86 project, I suppose I understand all the whining.</p><p>It's all they know how to contribute to the whole project. Good luck with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself .
I do n't know why this has to even be repeated , but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.None , of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years , lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in , you may notice , wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on .
Apparently , the natural conclusion goes right over their heads ... they are not Apple customers.They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers .
They are wrong ; that would make them Microsoft customers , because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS 's as it 's business model .
Go buy it ; there 's a snappy new version out right now , I hear.People buy Apple hardware because of the software .
This is not by accident , it 's not a secret , and it 's been going on three decades now .
You would think it would sink in at some point.Now , for those who get OSX to run on whatever hardware they manage to get it to run on , why the uproar over the Atom ?
Are n't you guys supposed to be hackers ? Go hack .
Half the fun , ( for some all the fun ) is n't running the software , it is figuring out how to get the software to do what you want.If they 're not hackers , but they want a pre-made boxed solution to their own pet OSX on x86 project , I suppose I understand all the whining.It 's all they know how to contribute to the whole project .
Good luck with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself.
I don't know why this has to even be repeated, but Apple is a hardware company and to sell boxed copies of OSX than ran on generic hardware would simply be shooting themselves in the foot.None, of all those who arise Phoenix-like every few months or years, lamenting the state of the OS world they find themselves in, you may notice, wants to buy the Apple hardware to run OSX on.
Apparently, the natural conclusion goes right over their heads ... they are not Apple customers.They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers.
They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model.
Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.People buy Apple hardware because of the software.
This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now.
You would think it would sink in at some point.Now, for those who get OSX to run on whatever hardware they manage to get it to run on, why the uproar over the Atom?
Aren't you guys supposed to be hackers?Go hack.
Half the fun, (for some all the fun) isn't running the software, it is figuring out how to get the software to do what you want.If they're not hackers, but they want a pre-made boxed solution to their own pet OSX on x86 project, I suppose I understand all the whining.It's all they know how to contribute to the whole project.
Good luck with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29966732</id>
	<title>The real question is...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257278760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why on earth is this legal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why on earth is this legal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why on earth is this legal?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958060</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the same way that a Trabant does exactly the same thing as a Lexus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the same way that a Trabant does exactly the same thing as a Lexus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the same way that a Trabant does exactly the same thing as a Lexus.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963602</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>gzunk</author>
	<datestamp>1257264720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was right with you until the bit about Nintendo losing money. That's false, therefore I don't know what other parts of your comment are also false, and I'm simply too uninformed to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was right with you until the bit about Nintendo losing money .
That 's false , therefore I do n't know what other parts of your comment are also false , and I 'm simply too uninformed to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was right with you until the bit about Nintendo losing money.
That's false, therefore I don't know what other parts of your comment are also false, and I'm simply too uninformed to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958416</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Ungulate</author>
	<datestamp>1257173220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because Apple's first attempt to license the OS was unsuccessful doesn't mean that it can't work now, if it were executed properly. Now that Macintoshes run on normal PC hardware, Apple could just expand the range of supported chipsets/hardware and certify systems from major OEMs to be MacOS compatible. The hackintosh community has already done a great deal of work in supporting regular hardware - if you buy the correct parts and download one of the easy-to-install MacOS distros, there's almost zero tinkering to be done. If the hobbyists can make that much progress, Apple could obviously do a much better job. If they could seriously challenge Windows with a strategy like this, I think it could be far more lucrative than the hardware profits they reap from their 10\% marketshare.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because Apple 's first attempt to license the OS was unsuccessful does n't mean that it ca n't work now , if it were executed properly .
Now that Macintoshes run on normal PC hardware , Apple could just expand the range of supported chipsets/hardware and certify systems from major OEMs to be MacOS compatible .
The hackintosh community has already done a great deal of work in supporting regular hardware - if you buy the correct parts and download one of the easy-to-install MacOS distros , there 's almost zero tinkering to be done .
If the hobbyists can make that much progress , Apple could obviously do a much better job .
If they could seriously challenge Windows with a strategy like this , I think it could be far more lucrative than the hardware profits they reap from their 10 \ % marketshare .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because Apple's first attempt to license the OS was unsuccessful doesn't mean that it can't work now, if it were executed properly.
Now that Macintoshes run on normal PC hardware, Apple could just expand the range of supported chipsets/hardware and certify systems from major OEMs to be MacOS compatible.
The hackintosh community has already done a great deal of work in supporting regular hardware - if you buy the correct parts and download one of the easy-to-install MacOS distros, there's almost zero tinkering to be done.
If the hobbyists can make that much progress, Apple could obviously do a much better job.
If they could seriously challenge Windows with a strategy like this, I think it could be far more lucrative than the hardware profits they reap from their 10\% marketshare.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959186</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257177540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share.  I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.</p></div><p>The clones didn't expand the Mac market because <b>Apple would not let them</b>. The clone maker's designs had to be approved by Apple. At least some were required to use Apple motherboards. PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.</p><p>The net effect of Apple's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple learned it 's lesson in the 90 's when it licensed MacOS .
While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share , it instead only whittled away at Apple 's own market share .
I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.The clones did n't expand the Mac market because Apple would not let them .
The clone maker 's designs had to be approved by Apple .
At least some were required to use Apple motherboards .
PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.The net effect of Apple 's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS.
While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share.
I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.The clones didn't expand the Mac market because Apple would not let them.
The clone maker's designs had to be approved by Apple.
At least some were required to use Apple motherboards.
PowerComputing showed at trade shows several models in development that would have taken the Mac to new markets--but they could not get permission from Apple to sell them.The net effect of Apple's restrictions was the all the clone makers really were licensed to do was put Macs in different cases.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958344</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Lehk228</author>
	<datestamp>1257172800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the eee 700 and 900 series machines are a very robust and carry-frindly design.  you can throw it into the pocket of cargo pants or a coat with no problem.  try that with a 13" FailBookPro</htmltext>
<tokenext>the eee 700 and 900 series machines are a very robust and carry-frindly design .
you can throw it into the pocket of cargo pants or a coat with no problem .
try that with a 13 " FailBookPro</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the eee 700 and 900 series machines are a very robust and carry-frindly design.
you can throw it into the pocket of cargo pants or a coat with no problem.
try that with a 13" FailBookPro</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29996916</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257446760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen.  He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.</p></div><p>I agree with this: "...Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two"</p><p>Expanding the idea, almost no one expects Nokia, Motorola, etc., to separately sell the smartphones and the software that they run.</p><p>So, if Apple won't sell me MacOS X, fine, then, I'll use Linux in my computers.</p><p>Edited quote:</p><p><div class="quote"><p> <strong>One reason</strong> OS X is not on my <strong>Acer One</strong> is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it<strong>, were it more important to me.</strong> </p><p><div class="quote"></div></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , as long as Jobs is at the helm , this will never happen .
He 's made it very clear that Apple does n't sell hardware or software , but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.I agree with this : " ...Apple does n't sell hardware or software , but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two " Expanding the idea , almost no one expects Nokia , Motorola , etc. , to separately sell the smartphones and the software that they run.So , if Apple wo n't sell me MacOS X , fine , then , I 'll use Linux in my computers.Edited quote : One reason OS X is not on my Acer One is that I want to comply with the licensing terms .
I could just pay for a license to use it , were it more important to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen.
He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.I agree with this: "...Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two"Expanding the idea, almost no one expects Nokia, Motorola, etc., to separately sell the smartphones and the software that they run.So, if Apple won't sell me MacOS X, fine, then, I'll use Linux in my computers.Edited quote: One reason OS X is not on my Acer One is that I want to comply with the licensing terms.
I could just pay for a license to use it, were it more important to me. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960832</id>
	<title>At some point someone will remember that...</title>
	<author>rusty0101</author>
	<datestamp>1257279480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...when it gets down to it, the MacOS X platform is a Unix kernel and a collection of libraries and UI tools that ride on top of it. The collection that rides on top of it is based on the NeXT Step design and that already has an open source implementation called OpenStep.</p><p>The only thing preventing someone from going beyond that and implementing the remainder of the UI on a BSD kernel running OpenStep is either the fear of being stomped on legally by Apple, or the self-fulfilling belief that it can't be done.</p><p>OS X users are already benefiting from the experience gained in the development of Wine. If they want their favorite platform to do what it does so well, on the hardware they want to use it on, it is honestly going to be up to them to decide how they are going to deal with the fact that Apple is not only going to be opposed to that stance, Apple is going to act on that opposition.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...when it gets down to it , the MacOS X platform is a Unix kernel and a collection of libraries and UI tools that ride on top of it .
The collection that rides on top of it is based on the NeXT Step design and that already has an open source implementation called OpenStep.The only thing preventing someone from going beyond that and implementing the remainder of the UI on a BSD kernel running OpenStep is either the fear of being stomped on legally by Apple , or the self-fulfilling belief that it ca n't be done.OS X users are already benefiting from the experience gained in the development of Wine .
If they want their favorite platform to do what it does so well , on the hardware they want to use it on , it is honestly going to be up to them to decide how they are going to deal with the fact that Apple is not only going to be opposed to that stance , Apple is going to act on that opposition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...when it gets down to it, the MacOS X platform is a Unix kernel and a collection of libraries and UI tools that ride on top of it.
The collection that rides on top of it is based on the NeXT Step design and that already has an open source implementation called OpenStep.The only thing preventing someone from going beyond that and implementing the remainder of the UI on a BSD kernel running OpenStep is either the fear of being stomped on legally by Apple, or the self-fulfilling belief that it can't be done.OS X users are already benefiting from the experience gained in the development of Wine.
If they want their favorite platform to do what it does so well, on the hardware they want to use it on, it is honestly going to be up to them to decide how they are going to deal with the fact that Apple is not only going to be opposed to that stance, Apple is going to act on that opposition.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962728</id>
	<title>GNUstep</title>
	<author>Weezul</author>
	<datestamp>1257259680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not just focus on improving GNUstep?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not just focus on improving GNUstep ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not just focus on improving GNUstep?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</id>
	<title>Netbooks</title>
	<author>sqrt(2)</author>
	<datestamp>1257167640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the 13" MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability? Yes, it's more expensive, but we're talking about Apple and they're always a little more expensive because it's a higher quality product. The 13" MBP is very thin and light, it's not sub-12 inches but it travels well in bags or backpacks, if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X, Apple already makes one.</p><p>I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makers. Once they give up total control of the experience it's going to make things less pleasant for the end user, and there goes Apple's reputation for reliability and the integration of hardware and software which distinguishes them from other companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the 13 " MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability ?
Yes , it 's more expensive , but we 're talking about Apple and they 're always a little more expensive because it 's a higher quality product .
The 13 " MBP is very thin and light , it 's not sub-12 inches but it travels well in bags or backpacks , if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X , Apple already makes one.I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makers .
Once they give up total control of the experience it 's going to make things less pleasant for the end user , and there goes Apple 's reputation for reliability and the integration of hardware and software which distinguishes them from other companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the 13" MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability?
Yes, it's more expensive, but we're talking about Apple and they're always a little more expensive because it's a higher quality product.
The 13" MBP is very thin and light, it's not sub-12 inches but it travels well in bags or backpacks, if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X, Apple already makes one.I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makers.
Once they give up total control of the experience it's going to make things less pleasant for the end user, and there goes Apple's reputation for reliability and the integration of hardware and software which distinguishes them from other companies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958570</id>
	<title>OS X licensing</title>
	<author>funkboy</author>
	<datestamp>1257174000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they wouldn't license it to <a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/Dell-We-Would-License-Mac-OS-X/1118955105" title="betanews.com" rel="nofollow">Dell</a> [betanews.com], then they won't license it to you.  Not as long as Steve is the boss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they would n't license it to Dell [ betanews.com ] , then they wo n't license it to you .
Not as long as Steve is the boss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they wouldn't license it to Dell [betanews.com], then they won't license it to you.
Not as long as Steve is the boss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961052</id>
	<title>This is stupid</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1257239520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple should be using Atom based Mac Netbooks to sell under $300 Mac Netbooks that runs Mac OSX to compete with the Windows XP/7 Netbooks and Linux Netbooks.</p><p>Now if Apple wants to use Atom based processors they are SOL unless they modify the OS to allow it.</p><p>Not like they can stop the Hackintosh, Mac OSX86 Hackers patch the OSX kernel and code with code and the kernel from Darwin or even a version of *BSD Unix that supports the Non-Apple hardware like AMD 64 Bit CPUs for Non-Apple PCs to run OSX86 as it is called. Apple tried to close source the OSX kernel but the Darwin kernel is almost the same thing and the source code is available for it, and Hackintosh programmers just unassemble the OSX kernel and binaries, and then patch in the assembly from the Darwin and *BSD Unix code. You have to remember the Hackintosh OSX86 is a modified OSX with the DRM removed and the check for Non-Apple hardware removed and more support for Non-Apple hardware added like AMD and Atom chips. The Mac OSX weakness is that it is based on open sourced operating systems like Darwin and the MACH kernel, and *BSD Unix, which means Hackers can exchange code from the OSX install DVD with code from the OSS projects. Apple can stop a few hackers, but they cannot stop them all. But it will take time for the hackers to get around this latest version of OSX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple should be using Atom based Mac Netbooks to sell under $ 300 Mac Netbooks that runs Mac OSX to compete with the Windows XP/7 Netbooks and Linux Netbooks.Now if Apple wants to use Atom based processors they are SOL unless they modify the OS to allow it.Not like they can stop the Hackintosh , Mac OSX86 Hackers patch the OSX kernel and code with code and the kernel from Darwin or even a version of * BSD Unix that supports the Non-Apple hardware like AMD 64 Bit CPUs for Non-Apple PCs to run OSX86 as it is called .
Apple tried to close source the OSX kernel but the Darwin kernel is almost the same thing and the source code is available for it , and Hackintosh programmers just unassemble the OSX kernel and binaries , and then patch in the assembly from the Darwin and * BSD Unix code .
You have to remember the Hackintosh OSX86 is a modified OSX with the DRM removed and the check for Non-Apple hardware removed and more support for Non-Apple hardware added like AMD and Atom chips .
The Mac OSX weakness is that it is based on open sourced operating systems like Darwin and the MACH kernel , and * BSD Unix , which means Hackers can exchange code from the OSX install DVD with code from the OSS projects .
Apple can stop a few hackers , but they can not stop them all .
But it will take time for the hackers to get around this latest version of OSX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple should be using Atom based Mac Netbooks to sell under $300 Mac Netbooks that runs Mac OSX to compete with the Windows XP/7 Netbooks and Linux Netbooks.Now if Apple wants to use Atom based processors they are SOL unless they modify the OS to allow it.Not like they can stop the Hackintosh, Mac OSX86 Hackers patch the OSX kernel and code with code and the kernel from Darwin or even a version of *BSD Unix that supports the Non-Apple hardware like AMD 64 Bit CPUs for Non-Apple PCs to run OSX86 as it is called.
Apple tried to close source the OSX kernel but the Darwin kernel is almost the same thing and the source code is available for it, and Hackintosh programmers just unassemble the OSX kernel and binaries, and then patch in the assembly from the Darwin and *BSD Unix code.
You have to remember the Hackintosh OSX86 is a modified OSX with the DRM removed and the check for Non-Apple hardware removed and more support for Non-Apple hardware added like AMD and Atom chips.
The Mac OSX weakness is that it is based on open sourced operating systems like Darwin and the MACH kernel, and *BSD Unix, which means Hackers can exchange code from the OSX install DVD with code from the OSS projects.
Apple can stop a few hackers, but they cannot stop them all.
But it will take time for the hackers to get around this latest version of OSX.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29968698</id>
	<title>This is why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257244800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My last 2 laptop purchases were PC's running Windows.  I have built 2 hackintoshes (1 for main computer, the other as a small web server) and yes I bought a retail disk each of them.  It was worth it.  Why not buy a Mac then?  The iMac is not enough.  The Mac Pro is too much for my needs.  I needed something in the middle for the main computer and Apple did not offer that.  So I filled the hole myself.  The other problem is I want to be able to choose which graphics card I use and not be saddled with the tiny few cards Apple wants to support.  And worse with the Mac Pro, you can only use Mac edition cards.  While on a Hackintosh, you can buy many off the shelf cards and find a driver to make them work since the Hackintosh has regular BIOS.  So not only was my hackintosh cheaper and sized right for my needs but it is also more expandable since it is not crippled by being EFI only.</p><p>Apple can cry all they want, but until they fill this huge hole in their product line and allow better support for 3rd party cards, people like me will keep building home made Macs.</p><p>I find it ironic that Apple would kvetch about people building their own computers at home when that is how their company was founded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My last 2 laptop purchases were PC 's running Windows .
I have built 2 hackintoshes ( 1 for main computer , the other as a small web server ) and yes I bought a retail disk each of them .
It was worth it .
Why not buy a Mac then ?
The iMac is not enough .
The Mac Pro is too much for my needs .
I needed something in the middle for the main computer and Apple did not offer that .
So I filled the hole myself .
The other problem is I want to be able to choose which graphics card I use and not be saddled with the tiny few cards Apple wants to support .
And worse with the Mac Pro , you can only use Mac edition cards .
While on a Hackintosh , you can buy many off the shelf cards and find a driver to make them work since the Hackintosh has regular BIOS .
So not only was my hackintosh cheaper and sized right for my needs but it is also more expandable since it is not crippled by being EFI only.Apple can cry all they want , but until they fill this huge hole in their product line and allow better support for 3rd party cards , people like me will keep building home made Macs.I find it ironic that Apple would kvetch about people building their own computers at home when that is how their company was founded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My last 2 laptop purchases were PC's running Windows.
I have built 2 hackintoshes (1 for main computer, the other as a small web server) and yes I bought a retail disk each of them.
It was worth it.
Why not buy a Mac then?
The iMac is not enough.
The Mac Pro is too much for my needs.
I needed something in the middle for the main computer and Apple did not offer that.
So I filled the hole myself.
The other problem is I want to be able to choose which graphics card I use and not be saddled with the tiny few cards Apple wants to support.
And worse with the Mac Pro, you can only use Mac edition cards.
While on a Hackintosh, you can buy many off the shelf cards and find a driver to make them work since the Hackintosh has regular BIOS.
So not only was my hackintosh cheaper and sized right for my needs but it is also more expandable since it is not crippled by being EFI only.Apple can cry all they want, but until they fill this huge hole in their product line and allow better support for 3rd party cards, people like me will keep building home made Macs.I find it ironic that Apple would kvetch about people building their own computers at home when that is how their company was founded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959434</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>indiechild</author>
	<datestamp>1257179940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For proof, just compare the price of retail Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. Mac OS X is clearly subsidised by Apple hardware sales.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For proof , just compare the price of retail Windows 7 and Snow Leopard .
Mac OS X is clearly subsidised by Apple hardware sales .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For proof, just compare the price of retail Windows 7 and Snow Leopard.
Mac OS X is clearly subsidised by Apple hardware sales.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958178</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964562</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>gobbo</author>
	<datestamp>1257268860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I specc'ed out a hackintosh for the last upgrade I did, a year ago. I edit video and audio, 2D design, web dev, etc. so needed to keep using OS X, and wanted a tower.</p><p>By the time I priced out an IPS monitor, quality compact case and PS, silent fans and cooling, quality firewire and audio (all at newegg or ncix prices or less), I was $150CDN short of a refurb iMac 24", and my time and warranty desires more than make up for that.</p><p>Then, there is the value equation of Mac resale value. Like a toyota or mercedes, the used ones are priced high because they frakkin' well last, so instead of replacing parts you just replace the whole unit, which makes it cheaper overall than a heavily depreciated generic box.</p><p>So, your comparison doesn't take into consideration three important things I discovered in my hackintosh:</p><p>1. SILENT operation (imacs really quiet)<br>2. screen quality<br>3. RESALE value</p><p>That said, I fully intend on putting snow leopard on a hp netbook later this month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I specc'ed out a hackintosh for the last upgrade I did , a year ago .
I edit video and audio , 2D design , web dev , etc .
so needed to keep using OS X , and wanted a tower.By the time I priced out an IPS monitor , quality compact case and PS , silent fans and cooling , quality firewire and audio ( all at newegg or ncix prices or less ) , I was $ 150CDN short of a refurb iMac 24 " , and my time and warranty desires more than make up for that.Then , there is the value equation of Mac resale value .
Like a toyota or mercedes , the used ones are priced high because they frakkin ' well last , so instead of replacing parts you just replace the whole unit , which makes it cheaper overall than a heavily depreciated generic box.So , your comparison does n't take into consideration three important things I discovered in my hackintosh : 1 .
SILENT operation ( imacs really quiet ) 2. screen quality3 .
RESALE valueThat said , I fully intend on putting snow leopard on a hp netbook later this month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I specc'ed out a hackintosh for the last upgrade I did, a year ago.
I edit video and audio, 2D design, web dev, etc.
so needed to keep using OS X, and wanted a tower.By the time I priced out an IPS monitor, quality compact case and PS, silent fans and cooling, quality firewire and audio (all at newegg or ncix prices or less), I was $150CDN short of a refurb iMac 24", and my time and warranty desires more than make up for that.Then, there is the value equation of Mac resale value.
Like a toyota or mercedes, the used ones are priced high because they frakkin' well last, so instead of replacing parts you just replace the whole unit, which makes it cheaper overall than a heavily depreciated generic box.So, your comparison doesn't take into consideration three important things I discovered in my hackintosh:1.
SILENT operation (imacs really quiet)2. screen quality3.
RESALE valueThat said, I fully intend on putting snow leopard on a hp netbook later this month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959234</id>
	<title>Re:Mac OS X for generic machines.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft doesn't really care if you run Windows or Mac OS on your generic hardware.  Chances are you already payed the Microsoft tax, and you might even buy Office for Mac.  Hell, some people might dual-boot and have Office for Windows and Mac.  Then they make even more money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft does n't really care if you run Windows or Mac OS on your generic hardware .
Chances are you already payed the Microsoft tax , and you might even buy Office for Mac .
Hell , some people might dual-boot and have Office for Windows and Mac .
Then they make even more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft doesn't really care if you run Windows or Mac OS on your generic hardware.
Chances are you already payed the Microsoft tax, and you might even buy Office for Mac.
Hell, some people might dual-boot and have Office for Windows and Mac.
Then they make even more money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960306</id>
	<title>MacEnvy</title>
	<author>ThinkTwice</author>
	<datestamp>1257187440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People buy a Mac because it is easy to use and it just works. I have a couple Atom boxes (a single and dual core) and have thought about installing one of my family licenses (10.5 or 10.6) on one of them, but I haven't had the time (or I am to lazy).  Originally it was a pain to install Linux on the Atom, because of the Ethernet drivers, but now they work good with Linux. I recommend Macs to my family and friends, because I don't have to do tech support for them, they can figure everything out themselves. We have a few Macs in my immediate family and a couple Windows boxes and few Linux boxes.  I use the Linux boxes as servers/appliances and seldom use Windows. My kids use Windows at school, but mostly use Macs at home and have been syncing their iPods and now iPod Touches to the Macs since they were young. I still like to play with Linux, but when I want to use a computer I use a Mac, because it just works.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People buy a Mac because it is easy to use and it just works .
I have a couple Atom boxes ( a single and dual core ) and have thought about installing one of my family licenses ( 10.5 or 10.6 ) on one of them , but I have n't had the time ( or I am to lazy ) .
Originally it was a pain to install Linux on the Atom , because of the Ethernet drivers , but now they work good with Linux .
I recommend Macs to my family and friends , because I do n't have to do tech support for them , they can figure everything out themselves .
We have a few Macs in my immediate family and a couple Windows boxes and few Linux boxes .
I use the Linux boxes as servers/appliances and seldom use Windows .
My kids use Windows at school , but mostly use Macs at home and have been syncing their iPods and now iPod Touches to the Macs since they were young .
I still like to play with Linux , but when I want to use a computer I use a Mac , because it just works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People buy a Mac because it is easy to use and it just works.
I have a couple Atom boxes (a single and dual core) and have thought about installing one of my family licenses (10.5 or 10.6) on one of them, but I haven't had the time (or I am to lazy).
Originally it was a pain to install Linux on the Atom, because of the Ethernet drivers, but now they work good with Linux.
I recommend Macs to my family and friends, because I don't have to do tech support for them, they can figure everything out themselves.
We have a few Macs in my immediate family and a couple Windows boxes and few Linux boxes.
I use the Linux boxes as servers/appliances and seldom use Windows.
My kids use Windows at school, but mostly use Macs at home and have been syncing their iPods and now iPod Touches to the Macs since they were young.
I still like to play with Linux, but when I want to use a computer I use a Mac, because it just works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957504</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257168960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How much do you get per hour for assembly and testing and warranty for 1 year?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much do you get per hour for assembly and testing and warranty for 1 year ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much do you get per hour for assembly and testing and warranty for 1 year?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957832</id>
	<title>Re:Hackintosh as a Production Environment</title>
	<author>LSDelirious</author>
	<datestamp>1257170340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the few people I've known to dabble in Hackintoshery were solely interested in running Apple-only software like Final Cut or Logic, without having to drop an extra $3k+ on a new machine to do so when their current higher end PC would do the trick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the few people I 've known to dabble in Hackintoshery were solely interested in running Apple-only software like Final Cut or Logic , without having to drop an extra $ 3k + on a new machine to do so when their current higher end PC would do the trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the few people I've known to dabble in Hackintoshery were solely interested in running Apple-only software like Final Cut or Logic, without having to drop an extra $3k+ on a new machine to do so when their current higher end PC would do the trick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29975432</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Clockwurk</author>
	<datestamp>1256983680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Macs are high quality?</p><p>And you link to the Green Party?</p><p>Thats a lot of faggotry for just one post.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Macs are high quality ? And you link to the Green Party ? Thats a lot of faggotry for just one post .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Macs are high quality?And you link to the Green Party?Thats a lot of faggotry for just one post.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957582</id>
	<title>The RDF is strong with this one</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257169260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A LITTLE more expensive? Seriously man, what are you on? Base price is $1200. A 10" EEE PC (with XP not Linux) is only $320. The Mac is damn near four times the price! That is not a little more expensive, that is a whole different category of cost.</p><p>The appeal of netbooks isn't just the portability, though that is certainly part of it. The 7" ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases (some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field). A big part of the appeal is price. If you don't need much computer, if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do, you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.</p><p>The MBP is not at all the same market at its price. You are in to the mid range, or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point. That's fine if that's what you need/want, but it is not at all a netbook competitor.</p><p>This has always been one of Apple's big problems. Not everyone wants expensive shit. They have somewhat diversified their desktop line, though a consumer tower is notably absent, as it always has been, but their portable line is as pricey as ever. You start upper mid range and go up from there. There's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A LITTLE more expensive ?
Seriously man , what are you on ?
Base price is $ 1200 .
A 10 " EEE PC ( with XP not Linux ) is only $ 320 .
The Mac is damn near four times the price !
That is not a little more expensive , that is a whole different category of cost.The appeal of netbooks is n't just the portability , though that is certainly part of it .
The 7 " ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases ( some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field ) .
A big part of the appeal is price .
If you do n't need much computer , if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do , you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.The MBP is not at all the same market at its price .
You are in to the mid range , or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point .
That 's fine if that 's what you need/want , but it is not at all a netbook competitor.This has always been one of Apple 's big problems .
Not everyone wants expensive shit .
They have somewhat diversified their desktop line , though a consumer tower is notably absent , as it always has been , but their portable line is as pricey as ever .
You start upper mid range and go up from there .
There 's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A LITTLE more expensive?
Seriously man, what are you on?
Base price is $1200.
A 10" EEE PC (with XP not Linux) is only $320.
The Mac is damn near four times the price!
That is not a little more expensive, that is a whole different category of cost.The appeal of netbooks isn't just the portability, though that is certainly part of it.
The 7" ones in particular can fit in extremely small bags which is useful in some cases (some of our researchers use them to control devices in the field).
A big part of the appeal is price.
If you don't need much computer, if word processing and web surfing is pretty much all you do, you can have a computer for just a couple hundred bucks.The MBP is not at all the same market at its price.
You are in to the mid range, or upper mid range of normal laptops at this point.
That's fine if that's what you need/want, but it is not at all a netbook competitor.This has always been one of Apple's big problems.
Not everyone wants expensive shit.
They have somewhat diversified their desktop line, though a consumer tower is notably absent, as it always has been, but their portable line is as pricey as ever.
You start upper mid range and go up from there.
There's nothing for people who want a minimal system for minimal cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959392</id>
	<title>Simple solution.</title>
	<author>bXTr</author>
	<datestamp>1257179700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So OS X can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware? What's Apple-branded hardware? Hardware with the Apple logo on it?</p><p>Every copy of OS X comes with about four stickers with the Apple logo. Take one, slap it on your PC and enjoy.</p><p>Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So OS X can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware ?
What 's Apple-branded hardware ?
Hardware with the Apple logo on it ? Every copy of OS X comes with about four stickers with the Apple logo .
Take one , slap it on your PC and enjoy.Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So OS X can only be installed on Apple-branded hardware?
What's Apple-branded hardware?
Hardware with the Apple logo on it?Every copy of OS X comes with about four stickers with the Apple logo.
Take one, slap it on your PC and enjoy.Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254</id>
	<title>Mac OS X for generic machines.</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1257167880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware.  A lot of companies have company-wide purchasing contracts with Dell or HP, and the typical user doesn't have the authority to buy anything different.  A lot of those same people though, could spend $500 for a software package on their own authority.</p><p>That being said, Apple still has to consider Microsoft when deciding whether to do this.  If Apple offered Mac OS X on generic hardware, you can bet that MS would pull the plug on all Mac products immediately.  Maybe we'll see this happen when iWork is ready to replace MS Office, but not yet.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware , and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac , they 'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers do n't get to pick their hardware .
A lot of companies have company-wide purchasing contracts with Dell or HP , and the typical user does n't have the authority to buy anything different .
A lot of those same people though , could spend $ 500 for a software package on their own authority.That being said , Apple still has to consider Microsoft when deciding whether to do this .
If Apple offered Mac OS X on generic hardware , you can bet that MS would pull the plug on all Mac products immediately .
Maybe we 'll see this happen when iWork is ready to replace MS Office , but not yet.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware.
A lot of companies have company-wide purchasing contracts with Dell or HP, and the typical user doesn't have the authority to buy anything different.
A lot of those same people though, could spend $500 for a software package on their own authority.That being said, Apple still has to consider Microsoft when deciding whether to do this.
If Apple offered Mac OS X on generic hardware, you can bet that MS would pull the plug on all Mac products immediately.
Maybe we'll see this happen when iWork is ready to replace MS Office, but not yet.-jcr</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312</id>
	<title>Why continue to reward a company that does this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My answer to Apple's attempts at vendor lock in have always been DON'T BUY THEIR CRAP.</p><p>This was true back when most Mac hardware such as cdrom drives or hard drives required tags in firmware for the computer to recognize it, even though there was nothing otherwise different about the unit whatsoever.</p><p>This is just the same old shit.</p><p>I don't have to worry about what OS-X will or will not run on because I do everything I can to avoid dealing with it in the first place.</p><p>Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My answer to Apple 's attempts at vendor lock in have always been DO N'T BUY THEIR CRAP.This was true back when most Mac hardware such as cdrom drives or hard drives required tags in firmware for the computer to recognize it , even though there was nothing otherwise different about the unit whatsoever.This is just the same old shit.I do n't have to worry about what OS-X will or will not run on because I do everything I can to avoid dealing with it in the first place.Complaining about Apple will not hurt them , but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My answer to Apple's attempts at vendor lock in have always been DON'T BUY THEIR CRAP.This was true back when most Mac hardware such as cdrom drives or hard drives required tags in firmware for the computer to recognize it, even though there was nothing otherwise different about the unit whatsoever.This is just the same old shit.I don't have to worry about what OS-X will or will not run on because I do everything I can to avoid dealing with it in the first place.Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957868</id>
	<title>IBM reverse engineering is the precendent</title>
	<author>davek</author>
	<datestamp>1257170460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple, I ask you, how is this different than <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM\_PC\_compatible" title="wikipedia.org">classic reverse engineering</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>IBM PC compatible computers are those generally similar to the original IBM PC, XT, and AT. Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones, or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture, facilitated by various manufacturers' ability to legally reverse engineer the BIOS through clean room design</p></div><p>There is legal precedent for an engineer's right to figure out the bits and bytes of your interface.  Therefore, the lockdown of the software is futile.  I am fully within my right run my legally purchased software on whatever hardware I chose.  The referenced case does refer only to hardware reverse-engineering, but one could easily expand that to a piece of hardware that exactly emulates the secret signals sent from the hardware to the OS to determine the the platform, in effect rendering any "blocking" of third party hardware completely useless.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple , I ask you , how is this different than classic reverse engineering [ wikipedia.org ] : IBM PC compatible computers are those generally similar to the original IBM PC , XT , and AT .
Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones , or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture , facilitated by various manufacturers ' ability to legally reverse engineer the BIOS through clean room designThere is legal precedent for an engineer 's right to figure out the bits and bytes of your interface .
Therefore , the lockdown of the software is futile .
I am fully within my right run my legally purchased software on whatever hardware I chose .
The referenced case does refer only to hardware reverse-engineering , but one could easily expand that to a piece of hardware that exactly emulates the secret signals sent from the hardware to the OS to determine the the platform , in effect rendering any " blocking " of third party hardware completely useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple, I ask you, how is this different than classic reverse engineering [wikipedia.org]:IBM PC compatible computers are those generally similar to the original IBM PC, XT, and AT.
Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones, or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture, facilitated by various manufacturers' ability to legally reverse engineer the BIOS through clean room designThere is legal precedent for an engineer's right to figure out the bits and bytes of your interface.
Therefore, the lockdown of the software is futile.
I am fully within my right run my legally purchased software on whatever hardware I chose.
The referenced case does refer only to hardware reverse-engineering, but one could easily expand that to a piece of hardware that exactly emulates the secret signals sent from the hardware to the OS to determine the the platform, in effect rendering any "blocking" of third party hardware completely useless.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958336</id>
	<title>Apple DO NOT WANT OSX....</title>
	<author>TheDarkMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1257172800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... on non-Apple hardware because they get system stability with a strict controled hardware. If you put any non-apple hardware, they (Apple) cannot garantee anymore the stability or the behavior of the system. <br> <br> And of course, they have a considerable profit on sell "apple hardware"</htmltext>
<tokenext>... on non-Apple hardware because they get system stability with a strict controled hardware .
If you put any non-apple hardware , they ( Apple ) can not garantee anymore the stability or the behavior of the system .
And of course , they have a considerable profit on sell " apple hardware "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... on non-Apple hardware because they get system stability with a strict controled hardware.
If you put any non-apple hardware, they (Apple) cannot garantee anymore the stability or the behavior of the system.
And of course, they have a considerable profit on sell "apple hardware"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960946</id>
	<title>Re:Why continue to reward a company that does this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As one of those 40 people... it's sad because it's true.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As one of those 40 people... it 's sad because it 's true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As one of those 40 people... it's sad because it's true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959000</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959000</id>
	<title>Re:Why continue to reward a company that does this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer <i>and</i> think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...
</p><p>
apple probably won't notice.
</p><p>
<i>but</i> if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...
</p><p>
still probably not notice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Complaining about Apple will not hurt them , but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will .
Well , if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that did n't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then.. . apple probably wo n't notice .
but if all 40 of them come here and complain , then apple will.. . still probably not notice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Complaining about Apple will not hurt them, but withholding your funds from them sure as hell will.
Well, if the 40 people in the world who realize that they can install an os that didn't come on their computer and think that OS X is worth installing withhold their funds then...

apple probably won't notice.
but if all 40 of them come here and complain, then apple will...

still probably not notice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960734</id>
	<title>Re:Another f**k up for Apple!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257191880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1.) Who cares? Blackberry managed sync with iTunes. Not a problem with Apple, but with Palm being lazy.<br>2.) Probably more to do with AT&amp;T than Apple, and the exclusivity is going to go some time.<br>3.) Business as usual in that case.<br>4.) If you like what Apple offers, the "walls" are irrelevant. Don't like it? You don't have to buy Apple products -- that's why choice is so great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
) Who cares ?
Blackberry managed sync with iTunes .
Not a problem with Apple , but with Palm being lazy.2 .
) Probably more to do with AT&amp;T than Apple , and the exclusivity is going to go some time.3 .
) Business as usual in that case.4 .
) If you like what Apple offers , the " walls " are irrelevant .
Do n't like it ?
You do n't have to buy Apple products -- that 's why choice is so great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
) Who cares?
Blackberry managed sync with iTunes.
Not a problem with Apple, but with Palm being lazy.2.
) Probably more to do with AT&amp;T than Apple, and the exclusivity is going to go some time.3.
) Business as usual in that case.4.
) If you like what Apple offers, the "walls" are irrelevant.
Don't like it?
You don't have to buy Apple products -- that's why choice is so great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961124</id>
	<title>Re:There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way .</title>
	<author>Orion Blastar</author>
	<datestamp>1257240480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have about five older Macintosh computers in my basement. I learned a long time ago that Apple was ripping off users by charging a high price for their hardware and limiting their OS to only Apple brand computers. What ticked me off for the last time was the killing of the Mac Clones like Power Computing, etc. I was going to buy one, but Apple killed them off. I instead got an iMac Bondi Blue G3 and that was the last Mac I got as it ran Mac OS9 and there was no upgrade path to Mac OSX, buy a new system. My iMac G3 didn't qualify for Mac OSX even if it was a slot loading CD Mac, they made a Firewire requirement and while it was possible to hack Mac OSX to install on a non-firewire iMac G3 it would require a hard drive upgrade, a RAM upgrade, and maybe even a CPU upgrade and I might as well have bought a newer Mac because the price Apple charges for the upgrades costs more than the PC versions of those upgrades as well. If I used PC parts it would void my warranty plus Apple claimed it would make the iMac unstable.</p><p>I was going to buy a Mac Mini, because finally it was the cheapest Mac, but because it is so small it is prone to over heating, plus upgrades for it are limited. Then the Intel Macs came out, and the Mac was just another PC but with a higher price tag and a different OS installed.</p><p>Yeah sure I could buy Mac OSX legally, but without an Apple hardware Macintosh I couldn't use it legally. My old Macs won't be able to run it, as the modern OSX no longer supports the old G3 series and requires more RAM than I can upgrade it with.</p><p>Truth be told the only reason why I won't buy a Mac is the price of the hardware, and on the lower priced models I won't buy them because of their limited upgrade status. What I really need is a Mac Book Pro for under $700 or a Macintosh Pro for under $300 as those are the prices of a PC with the same features, including mark downs and rebates at consumer electronic stores. But Apple doesn't sell them that cheap, so I consider them a rip-off. I consider using Linux on a cheap PC than Mac OSX on an expensive Mac.</p><p>Yeah Apple needs the Mac Clones again, but if they do most likely they will have an OEM agreement to keep the Mac Clones at the same price as the Apple brand Macs. Which would once again rip off the customers and drive people to the Hackintosh version of OSX86 on cheap PCs yet again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have about five older Macintosh computers in my basement .
I learned a long time ago that Apple was ripping off users by charging a high price for their hardware and limiting their OS to only Apple brand computers .
What ticked me off for the last time was the killing of the Mac Clones like Power Computing , etc .
I was going to buy one , but Apple killed them off .
I instead got an iMac Bondi Blue G3 and that was the last Mac I got as it ran Mac OS9 and there was no upgrade path to Mac OSX , buy a new system .
My iMac G3 did n't qualify for Mac OSX even if it was a slot loading CD Mac , they made a Firewire requirement and while it was possible to hack Mac OSX to install on a non-firewire iMac G3 it would require a hard drive upgrade , a RAM upgrade , and maybe even a CPU upgrade and I might as well have bought a newer Mac because the price Apple charges for the upgrades costs more than the PC versions of those upgrades as well .
If I used PC parts it would void my warranty plus Apple claimed it would make the iMac unstable.I was going to buy a Mac Mini , because finally it was the cheapest Mac , but because it is so small it is prone to over heating , plus upgrades for it are limited .
Then the Intel Macs came out , and the Mac was just another PC but with a higher price tag and a different OS installed.Yeah sure I could buy Mac OSX legally , but without an Apple hardware Macintosh I could n't use it legally .
My old Macs wo n't be able to run it , as the modern OSX no longer supports the old G3 series and requires more RAM than I can upgrade it with.Truth be told the only reason why I wo n't buy a Mac is the price of the hardware , and on the lower priced models I wo n't buy them because of their limited upgrade status .
What I really need is a Mac Book Pro for under $ 700 or a Macintosh Pro for under $ 300 as those are the prices of a PC with the same features , including mark downs and rebates at consumer electronic stores .
But Apple does n't sell them that cheap , so I consider them a rip-off .
I consider using Linux on a cheap PC than Mac OSX on an expensive Mac.Yeah Apple needs the Mac Clones again , but if they do most likely they will have an OEM agreement to keep the Mac Clones at the same price as the Apple brand Macs .
Which would once again rip off the customers and drive people to the Hackintosh version of OSX86 on cheap PCs yet again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have about five older Macintosh computers in my basement.
I learned a long time ago that Apple was ripping off users by charging a high price for their hardware and limiting their OS to only Apple brand computers.
What ticked me off for the last time was the killing of the Mac Clones like Power Computing, etc.
I was going to buy one, but Apple killed them off.
I instead got an iMac Bondi Blue G3 and that was the last Mac I got as it ran Mac OS9 and there was no upgrade path to Mac OSX, buy a new system.
My iMac G3 didn't qualify for Mac OSX even if it was a slot loading CD Mac, they made a Firewire requirement and while it was possible to hack Mac OSX to install on a non-firewire iMac G3 it would require a hard drive upgrade, a RAM upgrade, and maybe even a CPU upgrade and I might as well have bought a newer Mac because the price Apple charges for the upgrades costs more than the PC versions of those upgrades as well.
If I used PC parts it would void my warranty plus Apple claimed it would make the iMac unstable.I was going to buy a Mac Mini, because finally it was the cheapest Mac, but because it is so small it is prone to over heating, plus upgrades for it are limited.
Then the Intel Macs came out, and the Mac was just another PC but with a higher price tag and a different OS installed.Yeah sure I could buy Mac OSX legally, but without an Apple hardware Macintosh I couldn't use it legally.
My old Macs won't be able to run it, as the modern OSX no longer supports the old G3 series and requires more RAM than I can upgrade it with.Truth be told the only reason why I won't buy a Mac is the price of the hardware, and on the lower priced models I won't buy them because of their limited upgrade status.
What I really need is a Mac Book Pro for under $700 or a Macintosh Pro for under $300 as those are the prices of a PC with the same features, including mark downs and rebates at consumer electronic stores.
But Apple doesn't sell them that cheap, so I consider them a rip-off.
I consider using Linux on a cheap PC than Mac OSX on an expensive Mac.Yeah Apple needs the Mac Clones again, but if they do most likely they will have an OEM agreement to keep the Mac Clones at the same price as the Apple brand Macs.
Which would once again rip off the customers and drive people to the Hackintosh version of OSX86 on cheap PCs yet again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959010</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>sitarlo</author>
	<datestamp>1257176340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware.</p></div><p>Go to an Apple store and play around on the 27" iMac, then go to Best Buy and find any PC that is comparable (just as nicely built, just as quiet, just as slim, just as cool in temperature, just as powerful, and just as well supported).  If you find one, and I don't think you will, the price will be the same or more than the iMac.  Apple hardware IS expensive, but most of it isn't overpriced.  People need to remember that Apple *intends* for the average Joe to use PCs.  It's what sets Apple users apart as an elitist class of computer users (and Apple feeds this perception with things like "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercials).  One could say that Honda minivans are overpriced, but they aren't.  They are expensive yet they have the highest customer satisfaction ratings and so does Apple.  In economics there is the notion of inferior goods.  PCs and Windows fall into this category.  Being inferior is what allows them to be sold to a massive market.  Apple has also done an amazing economic trick in making Apple hardware capable of running Windows.  This means that Apple is a substitute for a PC, but a PC isn't a substitute for Apple.  This is why Apple's market share is going up, while PC oriented companies are falling into perfect competition where nobody is growing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple makes its money from its ( vastly overpriced ) hardware.Go to an Apple store and play around on the 27 " iMac , then go to Best Buy and find any PC that is comparable ( just as nicely built , just as quiet , just as slim , just as cool in temperature , just as powerful , and just as well supported ) .
If you find one , and I do n't think you will , the price will be the same or more than the iMac .
Apple hardware IS expensive , but most of it is n't overpriced .
People need to remember that Apple * intends * for the average Joe to use PCs .
It 's what sets Apple users apart as an elitist class of computer users ( and Apple feeds this perception with things like " I 'm a Mac , and I 'm a PC " commercials ) .
One could say that Honda minivans are overpriced , but they are n't .
They are expensive yet they have the highest customer satisfaction ratings and so does Apple .
In economics there is the notion of inferior goods .
PCs and Windows fall into this category .
Being inferior is what allows them to be sold to a massive market .
Apple has also done an amazing economic trick in making Apple hardware capable of running Windows .
This means that Apple is a substitute for a PC , but a PC is n't a substitute for Apple .
This is why Apple 's market share is going up , while PC oriented companies are falling into perfect competition where nobody is growing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware.Go to an Apple store and play around on the 27" iMac, then go to Best Buy and find any PC that is comparable (just as nicely built, just as quiet, just as slim, just as cool in temperature, just as powerful, and just as well supported).
If you find one, and I don't think you will, the price will be the same or more than the iMac.
Apple hardware IS expensive, but most of it isn't overpriced.
People need to remember that Apple *intends* for the average Joe to use PCs.
It's what sets Apple users apart as an elitist class of computer users (and Apple feeds this perception with things like "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" commercials).
One could say that Honda minivans are overpriced, but they aren't.
They are expensive yet they have the highest customer satisfaction ratings and so does Apple.
In economics there is the notion of inferior goods.
PCs and Windows fall into this category.
Being inferior is what allows them to be sold to a massive market.
Apple has also done an amazing economic trick in making Apple hardware capable of running Windows.
This means that Apple is a substitute for a PC, but a PC isn't a substitute for Apple.
This is why Apple's market share is going up, while PC oriented companies are falling into perfect competition where nobody is growing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960572</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>rakslice</author>
	<datestamp>1257190140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hasn't Apple already released 10.6 XNU kernel source? I guess 10.6.2  \_could\_ be the version that Apple stops releasing x86 kernel sources forever, but quite frankly the rumour mill has been saying that Apple wouldn't be releasing x86 kernel source any more for at least the last two OS versions worth of x86 source code releases.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has n't Apple already released 10.6 XNU kernel source ?
I guess 10.6.2 \ _could \ _ be the version that Apple stops releasing x86 kernel sources forever , but quite frankly the rumour mill has been saying that Apple would n't be releasing x86 kernel source any more for at least the last two OS versions worth of x86 source code releases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hasn't Apple already released 10.6 XNU kernel source?
I guess 10.6.2  \_could\_ be the version that Apple stops releasing x86 kernel sources forever, but quite frankly the rumour mill has been saying that Apple wouldn't be releasing x86 kernel source any more for at least the last two OS versions worth of x86 source code releases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958732</id>
	<title>Cheap hardware...</title>
	<author>sitarlo</author>
	<datestamp>1257174840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...is just cheap.  A hackintosh isn't as quiet, cool, and well-built as Apple hardware.  My iMac sits right next to a high-end PC and I use both daily and I can tell you that the Apple hardware AND software beats the PC/Windows thing hands down.  I used to prefer Windows and Linux to Apple, but that has certainly changed for me in the past few years.  The thought of running OSX on cheap PC hardware doesn't appeal to me at all.  It's like running Solaris on a PC instead of a Sparc box.  It just doesn't feel right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...is just cheap .
A hackintosh is n't as quiet , cool , and well-built as Apple hardware .
My iMac sits right next to a high-end PC and I use both daily and I can tell you that the Apple hardware AND software beats the PC/Windows thing hands down .
I used to prefer Windows and Linux to Apple , but that has certainly changed for me in the past few years .
The thought of running OSX on cheap PC hardware does n't appeal to me at all .
It 's like running Solaris on a PC instead of a Sparc box .
It just does n't feel right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...is just cheap.
A hackintosh isn't as quiet, cool, and well-built as Apple hardware.
My iMac sits right next to a high-end PC and I use both daily and I can tell you that the Apple hardware AND software beats the PC/Windows thing hands down.
I used to prefer Windows and Linux to Apple, but that has certainly changed for me in the past few years.
The thought of running OSX on cheap PC hardware doesn't appeal to me at all.
It's like running Solaris on a PC instead of a Sparc box.
It just doesn't feel right.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957468</id>
	<title>Re:"Apple Labeled" License Compliance</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257168780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If in fact you are an authorized agent of Apple to claim that you put the sticker there with Apple's corporate permission you would have a case.  Otherwise, you lose!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If in fact you are an authorized agent of Apple to claim that you put the sticker there with Apple 's corporate permission you would have a case .
Otherwise , you lose !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If in fact you are an authorized agent of Apple to claim that you put the sticker there with Apple's corporate permission you would have a case.
Otherwise, you lose!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962224</id>
	<title>Re:There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257255360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself. </i></p><p>Not true. You can walk into a store and pick it from a shelf. Apple will even sell it to you from its store. If they want to lock it down, they merely needs to ask for your mac serial number, which they don't. So it's clear apple are more than happy to sell the OS for $129 to anyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself .
Not true .
You can walk into a store and pick it from a shelf .
Apple will even sell it to you from its store .
If they want to lock it down , they merely needs to ask for your mac serial number , which they do n't .
So it 's clear apple are more than happy to sell the OS for $ 129 to anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is not going to sell the OS by itself.
Not true.
You can walk into a store and pick it from a shelf.
Apple will even sell it to you from its store.
If they want to lock it down, they merely needs to ask for your mac serial number, which they don't.
So it's clear apple are more than happy to sell the OS for $129 to anyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957816</id>
	<title>OSX on non Apple hardware.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257170220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote "But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware"</p><p>No, One of the reasons Windoze is such a pig is that M$ can not control the hardware people put in the machine.  M$ relies on vendors to write drivers for their own boards.  Some of these drivers are good and play well with others Other drivers suck and make Windoze unstable.  M$ tries to control this by certifying drivers, but with limited success.  Plus M$ is stuck with legacy hardware.</p><p>Apple eliminates this problem by controlling the hardware.  As a result, they can control the drivers and assure the hardware actually works with the OS.  Selling OSX without the hardware lock would expose OSX to the same crappy drivers and driver support that have historically stunk up the Windoze environment and the Linux environment.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote " But , it raises the question : is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware " No , One of the reasons Windoze is such a pig is that M $ can not control the hardware people put in the machine .
M $ relies on vendors to write drivers for their own boards .
Some of these drivers are good and play well with others Other drivers suck and make Windoze unstable .
M $ tries to control this by certifying drivers , but with limited success .
Plus M $ is stuck with legacy hardware.Apple eliminates this problem by controlling the hardware .
As a result , they can control the drivers and assure the hardware actually works with the OS .
Selling OSX without the hardware lock would expose OSX to the same crappy drivers and driver support that have historically stunk up the Windoze environment and the Linux environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote "But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware"No, One of the reasons Windoze is such a pig is that M$ can not control the hardware people put in the machine.
M$ relies on vendors to write drivers for their own boards.
Some of these drivers are good and play well with others Other drivers suck and make Windoze unstable.
M$ tries to control this by certifying drivers, but with limited success.
Plus M$ is stuck with legacy hardware.Apple eliminates this problem by controlling the hardware.
As a result, they can control the drivers and assure the hardware actually works with the OS.
Selling OSX without the hardware lock would expose OSX to the same crappy drivers and driver support that have historically stunk up the Windoze environment and the Linux environment.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't see how Apple can justify an $1,100 (USD) price difference. This isn't a little more expensive, this is double the price.</p><p>Mac:<br>Processor: 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core Duo<br>Memory: 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB<br>640GB Serial ATA Drive<br>NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MB<br>Apple Mighty Mouse</p><p>TOTAL PRICE: $3,000 (AUD)</p><p>LINK: <a href="http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html</a> [apple.com]</p><p>PC<br>$90  - Tower, fan and power supply<br>$60  - DVD Burner<br>$170 - 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core Duo<br>$95  - 640GB SATA HDD 3.5"; 7200 rpm<br>$30  - Keyboard and Mouse<br>$140 - 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Non-ECC CL9 DIMM (Kit of 2)<br>$450 - 24" LCD Monitor<br>$150 - Speakers and Sound card (estimate)<br>$190 - Graphics Card: Gigabyte GF9800GT, 1GB, Model:N98TOC-1GI #18192<br>$400 - Windows 7 Ultimate</p><p>TOTAL PRICE: $1775 (AUD)</p><p>SOURCE: Beecom - <a href="http://beecom.com.au/home.php" title="beecom.com.au">http://beecom.com.au/home.php</a> [beecom.com.au]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see how Apple can justify an $ 1,100 ( USD ) price difference .
This is n't a little more expensive , this is double the price.Mac : Processor : 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core DuoMemory : 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB640GB Serial ATA DriveNVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MBApple Mighty MouseTOTAL PRICE : $ 3,000 ( AUD ) LINK : http : //www.apple.com/imac/specs.html [ apple.com ] PC $ 90 - Tower , fan and power supply $ 60 - DVD Burner $ 170 - 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core Duo $ 95 - 640GB SATA HDD 3.5 " ; 7200 rpm $ 30 - Keyboard and Mouse $ 140 - 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Non-ECC CL9 DIMM ( Kit of 2 ) $ 450 - 24 " LCD Monitor $ 150 - Speakers and Sound card ( estimate ) $ 190 - Graphics Card : Gigabyte GF9800GT , 1GB , Model : N98TOC-1GI # 18192 $ 400 - Windows 7 UltimateTOTAL PRICE : $ 1775 ( AUD ) SOURCE : Beecom - http : //beecom.com.au/home.php [ beecom.com.au ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see how Apple can justify an $1,100 (USD) price difference.
This isn't a little more expensive, this is double the price.Mac:Processor: 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core DuoMemory: 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB640GB Serial ATA DriveNVIDIA GeForce GT 120 256MBApple Mighty MouseTOTAL PRICE: $3,000 (AUD)LINK: http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html [apple.com]PC$90  - Tower, fan and power supply$60  - DVD Burner$170 - 2.93 GHz Intel 2 Core Duo$95  - 640GB SATA HDD 3.5"; 7200 rpm$30  - Keyboard and Mouse$140 - 4GB 1333MHz DDR3 Non-ECC CL9 DIMM (Kit of 2)$450 - 24" LCD Monitor$150 - Speakers and Sound card (estimate)$190 - Graphics Card: Gigabyte GF9800GT, 1GB, Model:N98TOC-1GI #18192$400 - Windows 7 UltimateTOTAL PRICE: $1775 (AUD)SOURCE: Beecom - http://beecom.com.au/home.php [beecom.com.au]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959364</id>
	<title>Apple WON'T sell licenses for non-Apple hardware</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1257179280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The minute they do, their scheme of tighly controlled software on tightly controlled hardware goes out the window.</p><p>At that point, people buying OS X will see that it's no more or less stable on the gamut of hardware in the x86 sandbox than Windows is.</p><p>Additionally, the need to actually set up a full-time hardware testing lab (a'la WHQL) would eat, dramatically, into their famous profit margins).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The minute they do , their scheme of tighly controlled software on tightly controlled hardware goes out the window.At that point , people buying OS X will see that it 's no more or less stable on the gamut of hardware in the x86 sandbox than Windows is.Additionally , the need to actually set up a full-time hardware testing lab ( a'la WHQL ) would eat , dramatically , into their famous profit margins ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The minute they do, their scheme of tighly controlled software on tightly controlled hardware goes out the window.At that point, people buying OS X will see that it's no more or less stable on the gamut of hardware in the x86 sandbox than Windows is.Additionally, the need to actually set up a full-time hardware testing lab (a'la WHQL) would eat, dramatically, into their famous profit margins).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964724</id>
	<title>Typo in summary...</title>
	<author>jbuk</author>
	<datestamp>1257269460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kexts, not ktexts. Kernel EXTensionS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kexts , not ktexts .
Kernel EXTensionS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kexts, not ktexts.
Kernel EXTensionS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963050</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy Summary, Iffy Article</title>
	<author>konohitowa</author>
	<datestamp>1257261600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The summary is misleading.</p></div></blockquote><p>Since when has kdawson let the facts get in the way of a frothy anti-Apple story? Yeah, I know it was only approved by kdawson and not authored by, but the trend is definitely "if it's anti-Apple, approve it without verifying any detail in it" -- especially if it's likely to rile up the "Free as in Food Stamps" crowd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is misleading.Since when has kdawson let the facts get in the way of a frothy anti-Apple story ?
Yeah , I know it was only approved by kdawson and not authored by , but the trend is definitely " if it 's anti-Apple , approve it without verifying any detail in it " -- especially if it 's likely to rile up the " Free as in Food Stamps " crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is misleading.Since when has kdawson let the facts get in the way of a frothy anti-Apple story?
Yeah, I know it was only approved by kdawson and not authored by, but the trend is definitely "if it's anti-Apple, approve it without verifying any detail in it" -- especially if it's likely to rile up the "Free as in Food Stamps" crowd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958752</id>
	<title>No Apple Netbook?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257175020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So does this mean Apple isn't considering making a netbook? At least making a netbook with the Atom processor<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So does this mean Apple is n't considering making a netbook ?
At least making a netbook with the Atom processor .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So does this mean Apple isn't considering making a netbook?
At least making a netbook with the Atom processor ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959058</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>danlip</author>
	<datestamp>1257176640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware.</p></div><p>Vastly overpriced?  They are pricey, but you get a very good quality product and truly incredible customer service.  When they couldn't replace the screen on my PowerBook in a timely fashion (it would have taken 2 weeks to get the part) they offered my a completely new MacBook Pro for free.  They offered, I didn't even have to ask.  And I was just a month shy of the 3 year extended warranty, so my initial investment has gotten me 2 computers and lasted 4.5 years.  I have never had a PC laptop last half that long, so they may cost half as much (if you go really low end), but your total cost of ownership over time is more.  They completely replaced the guts of my wife's laptop (everything but the case and screen) for free.  They'll replace just about anything they even suspect it's defective with no hesitation.  In contrast I had to send my HP in twice before they replaced an obviously bad hard drive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple makes its money from its ( vastly overpriced ) hardware.Vastly overpriced ?
They are pricey , but you get a very good quality product and truly incredible customer service .
When they could n't replace the screen on my PowerBook in a timely fashion ( it would have taken 2 weeks to get the part ) they offered my a completely new MacBook Pro for free .
They offered , I did n't even have to ask .
And I was just a month shy of the 3 year extended warranty , so my initial investment has gotten me 2 computers and lasted 4.5 years .
I have never had a PC laptop last half that long , so they may cost half as much ( if you go really low end ) , but your total cost of ownership over time is more .
They completely replaced the guts of my wife 's laptop ( everything but the case and screen ) for free .
They 'll replace just about anything they even suspect it 's defective with no hesitation .
In contrast I had to send my HP in twice before they replaced an obviously bad hard drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple makes its money from its (vastly overpriced) hardware.Vastly overpriced?
They are pricey, but you get a very good quality product and truly incredible customer service.
When they couldn't replace the screen on my PowerBook in a timely fashion (it would have taken 2 weeks to get the part) they offered my a completely new MacBook Pro for free.
They offered, I didn't even have to ask.
And I was just a month shy of the 3 year extended warranty, so my initial investment has gotten me 2 computers and lasted 4.5 years.
I have never had a PC laptop last half that long, so they may cost half as much (if you go really low end), but your total cost of ownership over time is more.
They completely replaced the guts of my wife's laptop (everything but the case and screen) for free.
They'll replace just about anything they even suspect it's defective with no hesitation.
In contrast I had to send my HP in twice before they replaced an obviously bad hard drive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967124</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257281160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardware</p></div><p>I've always said Apple overcharges so decided to see if that was actually the case.  Went on newegg just now and priced out the core components (graphics, cpu, memory, hdd, monitor) and am right now at $500 to the comparable entry-level iMac which is $1200.  Of course we are still lacking case, psu, mobo, keyboard, mouse, and wifi if needed.  All together pending quality of those components it would be easy to vastly undershoot or overshoot $1200.</p><p>However there is another advantage aside from cost that the PC would have over the Mac which is upgrading.  Decide you want the handful of Mac games out there to look a little better?  Tough luck, Apple has no graphics upgrade paths outside of buying a newer more powerful system.  Like that old but so true fake Mac commercial stated, "upgrading is easy too, I just put my Mac in its box, throw it away, and buy a new one!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardwareI 've always said Apple overcharges so decided to see if that was actually the case .
Went on newegg just now and priced out the core components ( graphics , cpu , memory , hdd , monitor ) and am right now at $ 500 to the comparable entry-level iMac which is $ 1200 .
Of course we are still lacking case , psu , mobo , keyboard , mouse , and wifi if needed .
All together pending quality of those components it would be easy to vastly undershoot or overshoot $ 1200.However there is another advantage aside from cost that the PC would have over the Mac which is upgrading .
Decide you want the handful of Mac games out there to look a little better ?
Tough luck , Apple has no graphics upgrade paths outside of buying a newer more powerful system .
Like that old but so true fake Mac commercial stated , " upgrading is easy too , I just put my Mac in its box , throw it away , and buy a new one !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think Apple charges a fair price for the hardwareI've always said Apple overcharges so decided to see if that was actually the case.
Went on newegg just now and priced out the core components (graphics, cpu, memory, hdd, monitor) and am right now at $500 to the comparable entry-level iMac which is $1200.
Of course we are still lacking case, psu, mobo, keyboard, mouse, and wifi if needed.
All together pending quality of those components it would be easy to vastly undershoot or overshoot $1200.However there is another advantage aside from cost that the PC would have over the Mac which is upgrading.
Decide you want the handful of Mac games out there to look a little better?
Tough luck, Apple has no graphics upgrade paths outside of buying a newer more powerful system.
Like that old but so true fake Mac commercial stated, "upgrading is easy too, I just put my Mac in its box, throw it away, and buy a new one!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957374</id>
	<title>End-user experience comes first (IMHO)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IMHO</p><p>Apple is not licensing OS/X to third parties because it's not an operating system - it's a component of the Macintosh (and other) product lines.  It just happens to be software.</p><p>Apple has kept it simple: pay more for our well-designed and integrated product, enjoy it, and we'll support it.  That's no different than what Lexus or BMW do, just in a different market.</p><p>A less-than-perfect end-user experience is not Apple's goal.  Unbundling would lead to loss of control over the quality of the end-user experience.  One bad apple *can* spoil a whole bunch.</p><p>Imagine a scenario where Apple did license OS/X.  Follow that with third-party reviews, then pressure for Apple to fix *those* problems.  In no time at all, they're Microsoft (or at least battling the same demons).</p><p>(Of course, a hackintosh *could* be considered to be a "gateway drug", but that's another story...)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IMHOApple is not licensing OS/X to third parties because it 's not an operating system - it 's a component of the Macintosh ( and other ) product lines .
It just happens to be software.Apple has kept it simple : pay more for our well-designed and integrated product , enjoy it , and we 'll support it .
That 's no different than what Lexus or BMW do , just in a different market.A less-than-perfect end-user experience is not Apple 's goal .
Unbundling would lead to loss of control over the quality of the end-user experience .
One bad apple * can * spoil a whole bunch.Imagine a scenario where Apple did license OS/X .
Follow that with third-party reviews , then pressure for Apple to fix * those * problems .
In no time at all , they 're Microsoft ( or at least battling the same demons ) .
( Of course , a hackintosh * could * be considered to be a " gateway drug " , but that 's another story... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IMHOApple is not licensing OS/X to third parties because it's not an operating system - it's a component of the Macintosh (and other) product lines.
It just happens to be software.Apple has kept it simple: pay more for our well-designed and integrated product, enjoy it, and we'll support it.
That's no different than what Lexus or BMW do, just in a different market.A less-than-perfect end-user experience is not Apple's goal.
Unbundling would lead to loss of control over the quality of the end-user experience.
One bad apple *can* spoil a whole bunch.Imagine a scenario where Apple did license OS/X.
Follow that with third-party reviews, then pressure for Apple to fix *those* problems.
In no time at all, they're Microsoft (or at least battling the same demons).
(Of course, a hackintosh *could* be considered to be a "gateway drug", but that's another story...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958080</id>
	<title>If I was Fake Steve Jobs</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If I was Fake Steve Jobs I think I'd be saying something like:</p><p>You know in my line of work I hear a lot of whining. It comes with the job. But you need to understand it's for your own good. Now the Atom has no place in a Macintosh nor any place in really any computer. It is antiquated and overly complex. It drinks power compared to it's big brothers the i5 and i7 but we need a processor that sips power and we have the answer here in the ARM Cortex. I know it is hard to accept but really try hard and remember back to the days before the iMac, you were dead set on having a variety of serial busses. I know how much it hurt you to replace all of your ADB and RS232 peripherals so we did our best to let you keep using them for as long as we could but the strain on Apple just got to be too much and we had to move on. Really engineers don't deserve to be shackled to their office working on drivers for 20 years old hardware that barely works in the first place. They need to be shackled in a creative design space working on drivers for the stuff you'll be buying next year and the year after that. So the decision, while unpopular with a few do it yourself types that ought to just get back to work cloning the suck that is Windows, is for your own good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was Fake Steve Jobs I think I 'd be saying something like : You know in my line of work I hear a lot of whining .
It comes with the job .
But you need to understand it 's for your own good .
Now the Atom has no place in a Macintosh nor any place in really any computer .
It is antiquated and overly complex .
It drinks power compared to it 's big brothers the i5 and i7 but we need a processor that sips power and we have the answer here in the ARM Cortex .
I know it is hard to accept but really try hard and remember back to the days before the iMac , you were dead set on having a variety of serial busses .
I know how much it hurt you to replace all of your ADB and RS232 peripherals so we did our best to let you keep using them for as long as we could but the strain on Apple just got to be too much and we had to move on .
Really engineers do n't deserve to be shackled to their office working on drivers for 20 years old hardware that barely works in the first place .
They need to be shackled in a creative design space working on drivers for the stuff you 'll be buying next year and the year after that .
So the decision , while unpopular with a few do it yourself types that ought to just get back to work cloning the suck that is Windows , is for your own good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was Fake Steve Jobs I think I'd be saying something like:You know in my line of work I hear a lot of whining.
It comes with the job.
But you need to understand it's for your own good.
Now the Atom has no place in a Macintosh nor any place in really any computer.
It is antiquated and overly complex.
It drinks power compared to it's big brothers the i5 and i7 but we need a processor that sips power and we have the answer here in the ARM Cortex.
I know it is hard to accept but really try hard and remember back to the days before the iMac, you were dead set on having a variety of serial busses.
I know how much it hurt you to replace all of your ADB and RS232 peripherals so we did our best to let you keep using them for as long as we could but the strain on Apple just got to be too much and we had to move on.
Really engineers don't deserve to be shackled to their office working on drivers for 20 years old hardware that barely works in the first place.
They need to be shackled in a creative design space working on drivers for the stuff you'll be buying next year and the year after that.
So the decision, while unpopular with a few do it yourself types that ought to just get back to work cloning the suck that is Windows, is for your own good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957282</id>
	<title>Raises The Sell OS X Standalone Question. Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the answer is no. Why increase support and development costs? Why go head to head with Microsoft when, as the world is today, Microsoft will win. Why make it easy for someone to have the "experience" without buying the iron? Why make it easier for Dell, HP, or Lenovo to sell their pcs? Because hackintoshers may have hurt feelings?</p><p>That was the last question this news item could possibly raise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the answer is no .
Why increase support and development costs ?
Why go head to head with Microsoft when , as the world is today , Microsoft will win .
Why make it easy for someone to have the " experience " without buying the iron ?
Why make it easier for Dell , HP , or Lenovo to sell their pcs ?
Because hackintoshers may have hurt feelings ? That was the last question this news item could possibly raise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the answer is no.
Why increase support and development costs?
Why go head to head with Microsoft when, as the world is today, Microsoft will win.
Why make it easy for someone to have the "experience" without buying the iron?
Why make it easier for Dell, HP, or Lenovo to sell their pcs?
Because hackintoshers may have hurt feelings?That was the last question this news item could possibly raise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962222</id>
	<title>I don' t understand this debacle...</title>
	<author>V!NCENT</author>
	<datestamp>1257255360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason people would want to use Mac OS X is because Apple computers are for people who had it with downloading drivers, reading the manuals, going threw slow as hell load-times for whatever is out there. People want a Mac because of the cut-the-crap please for the love of God give me something that works FFS!</p><p>And they buy a legal copy of Mac OS X and go threw the hassle of flashing their BIOSes, collecting parts, porting kernel drivers, compiling from source... sigh...</p><p>You can get a fscking tiny, beautiful and powerful Apple Mac Mini with a Core2DUO @ 2,53ghz, 2GB RAM, a GeForce 9400 mobile, DisplayPort and whatnot, passively cooled for $599 freaking US dollars. What the fsck is everyone's problem?</p><p>Why go threw the hassle by compiling kernels if you can run Gentoo with KDE4.3, Amarok, Kdenlive, Kopete, Rekonq and whatever quality apps and get a fast UNIX like system too?</p><p>I am a Windows and Linux user and I love Apple for their genious approach to computers. I watch every WWDC just because it' s awesome and I paid 1200 euro' s without the monitor on a desktop computer while I could have grabbed a Mac... So why does anyone wants to assemble a hackingtosh?!</p><p>Please enlighten me, because this is beyond logic.</p><p>PS: Oh and the overprised hardware? It runs faster than your Core i7 on Windows 7 and the enclosure is more expansive, so who cares? If you buy an Apple then you buy a computer, and not a CPU+RAM+whatever+OS... A laptop FFS costs $899 USD...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason people would want to use Mac OS X is because Apple computers are for people who had it with downloading drivers , reading the manuals , going threw slow as hell load-times for whatever is out there .
People want a Mac because of the cut-the-crap please for the love of God give me something that works FFS ! And they buy a legal copy of Mac OS X and go threw the hassle of flashing their BIOSes , collecting parts , porting kernel drivers , compiling from source... sigh...You can get a fscking tiny , beautiful and powerful Apple Mac Mini with a Core2DUO @ 2,53ghz , 2GB RAM , a GeForce 9400 mobile , DisplayPort and whatnot , passively cooled for $ 599 freaking US dollars .
What the fsck is everyone 's problem ? Why go threw the hassle by compiling kernels if you can run Gentoo with KDE4.3 , Amarok , Kdenlive , Kopete , Rekonq and whatever quality apps and get a fast UNIX like system too ? I am a Windows and Linux user and I love Apple for their genious approach to computers .
I watch every WWDC just because it ' s awesome and I paid 1200 euro ' s without the monitor on a desktop computer while I could have grabbed a Mac... So why does anyone wants to assemble a hackingtosh ?
! Please enlighten me , because this is beyond logic.PS : Oh and the overprised hardware ?
It runs faster than your Core i7 on Windows 7 and the enclosure is more expansive , so who cares ?
If you buy an Apple then you buy a computer , and not a CPU + RAM + whatever + OS... A laptop FFS costs $ 899 USD.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason people would want to use Mac OS X is because Apple computers are for people who had it with downloading drivers, reading the manuals, going threw slow as hell load-times for whatever is out there.
People want a Mac because of the cut-the-crap please for the love of God give me something that works FFS!And they buy a legal copy of Mac OS X and go threw the hassle of flashing their BIOSes, collecting parts, porting kernel drivers, compiling from source... sigh...You can get a fscking tiny, beautiful and powerful Apple Mac Mini with a Core2DUO @ 2,53ghz, 2GB RAM, a GeForce 9400 mobile, DisplayPort and whatnot, passively cooled for $599 freaking US dollars.
What the fsck is everyone's problem?Why go threw the hassle by compiling kernels if you can run Gentoo with KDE4.3, Amarok, Kdenlive, Kopete, Rekonq and whatever quality apps and get a fast UNIX like system too?I am a Windows and Linux user and I love Apple for their genious approach to computers.
I watch every WWDC just because it' s awesome and I paid 1200 euro' s without the monitor on a desktop computer while I could have grabbed a Mac... So why does anyone wants to assemble a hackingtosh?
!Please enlighten me, because this is beyond logic.PS: Oh and the overprised hardware?
It runs faster than your Core i7 on Windows 7 and the enclosure is more expansive, so who cares?
If you buy an Apple then you buy a computer, and not a CPU+RAM+whatever+OS... A laptop FFS costs $899 USD...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960432</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257188820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're comparing some generic 24" LCD monitor (that probably has only a TN panel), to the iMac's LED-backlit, IPS (probably H-IPS) LCD monitor?</p><p>Where's the FireWire 800 on the PC?  Or the Gigabit Ethernet?  Does the PC include 802.11n WiFi, or BlueTooth?  The iMac does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're comparing some generic 24 " LCD monitor ( that probably has only a TN panel ) , to the iMac 's LED-backlit , IPS ( probably H-IPS ) LCD monitor ? Where 's the FireWire 800 on the PC ?
Or the Gigabit Ethernet ?
Does the PC include 802.11n WiFi , or BlueTooth ?
The iMac does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're comparing some generic 24" LCD monitor (that probably has only a TN panel), to the iMac's LED-backlit, IPS (probably H-IPS) LCD monitor?Where's the FireWire 800 on the PC?
Or the Gigabit Ethernet?
Does the PC include 802.11n WiFi, or BlueTooth?
The iMac does.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960842</id>
	<title>According to slashdot, GPL is invalid</title>
	<author>aristotle-dude</author>
	<datestamp>1257279600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The SLA or Software Licence Agreement is something that you enter into when you purchase software in the same way as when you agree to download a licensed graphic for use in derived works.
<p>
You are not purchasing the "copy" right but rather a license for a copy of said work regardless of whether it is a graphic, compiled software or source code. They are all protected by copyright law and are licensed in different ways by the copyright holders. If you do not agree with the license, do not use the product.
</p><p>
If the creative commons license is valid and the GPL is valid and supported by copyright law then so is the SLA of OS X. No copyright holder has to provide a non-upgrade copy separate from their preferred distribution method. OS X is no different than firmware in the sense that the full version is only distributed with macs and only upgrades can be purchased.
</p><p>
The SLA for OS X is available here:</p><p>
<a href="http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/" title="apple.com">http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/</a> [apple.com] </p><p>
If slashdot readers expect others to respect the GPL or the Creative Commons Licenses, then the SLA posted by Apple for Snow Leopard should be respected as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The SLA or Software Licence Agreement is something that you enter into when you purchase software in the same way as when you agree to download a licensed graphic for use in derived works .
You are not purchasing the " copy " right but rather a license for a copy of said work regardless of whether it is a graphic , compiled software or source code .
They are all protected by copyright law and are licensed in different ways by the copyright holders .
If you do not agree with the license , do not use the product .
If the creative commons license is valid and the GPL is valid and supported by copyright law then so is the SLA of OS X. No copyright holder has to provide a non-upgrade copy separate from their preferred distribution method .
OS X is no different than firmware in the sense that the full version is only distributed with macs and only upgrades can be purchased .
The SLA for OS X is available here : http : //www.apple.com/legal/sla/ [ apple.com ] If slashdot readers expect others to respect the GPL or the Creative Commons Licenses , then the SLA posted by Apple for Snow Leopard should be respected as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The SLA or Software Licence Agreement is something that you enter into when you purchase software in the same way as when you agree to download a licensed graphic for use in derived works.
You are not purchasing the "copy" right but rather a license for a copy of said work regardless of whether it is a graphic, compiled software or source code.
They are all protected by copyright law and are licensed in different ways by the copyright holders.
If you do not agree with the license, do not use the product.
If the creative commons license is valid and the GPL is valid and supported by copyright law then so is the SLA of OS X. No copyright holder has to provide a non-upgrade copy separate from their preferred distribution method.
OS X is no different than firmware in the sense that the full version is only distributed with macs and only upgrades can be purchased.
The SLA for OS X is available here:
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/ [apple.com] 
If slashdot readers expect others to respect the GPL or the Creative Commons Licenses, then the SLA posted by Apple for Snow Leopard should be respected as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957236</id>
	<title>This is totally surprising!</title>
	<author>MrCrassic</author>
	<datestamp>1257167820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not like Apple uses every update to disable Hackintosh functionality, and the osx86 crack team finds the hole and fixes it.</p><p>This will only surprise those that upgraded without doing any research or those that upgrade without reading this first.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not like Apple uses every update to disable Hackintosh functionality , and the osx86 crack team finds the hole and fixes it.This will only surprise those that upgraded without doing any research or those that upgrade without reading this first .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not like Apple uses every update to disable Hackintosh functionality, and the osx86 crack team finds the hole and fixes it.This will only surprise those that upgraded without doing any research or those that upgrade without reading this first.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960364</id>
	<title>Nope.</title>
	<author>BlueBoxSW.com</author>
	<datestamp>1257187920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Next question, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Next question , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Next question, please.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960950</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>StackedCrooked</author>
	<datestamp>1257281220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The single Mac application the might make me choose Mac over PC would be Terminal (over cmd.exe).</htmltext>
<tokenext>The single Mac application the might make me choose Mac over PC would be Terminal ( over cmd.exe ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The single Mac application the might make me choose Mac over PC would be Terminal (over cmd.exe).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959830</id>
	<title>No, not time for unbundling the software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware &mdash; priced accordingly of course &mdash; for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook?"</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Nope.  The OS is a big deal to Apple, but is not where they make the big profits.  They made money selling PowerPC systems at huge prices, and now make money selling plain ol' x86 systems in a fancy case at a huge markup.  They do not want to give up that market just to sell more (relatively) low-margin copies of their OS.  This is also why they'll never make a netbook -- netbooks are also low-margin.  They may eventually make something they'll CALL a netbook, but it'll be over $1000 placing it well out of the netbook price range.</p><p>" The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms. I could just pay for a license to use it."<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And that's why they won't do it.  To run OSX, they want you to buy a $1000+ machine from them, not a $300 machine from someone else and then a $50 (or even $100) OS from them.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I should add as a practical matter, Jobs is a control freak and a perfectionist -- he wants things just so.  He also does not want OSX on other machines for aesthetic reasons -- it'd probably just kill him if he found out someone hacked OSX onto some box then had  volume control not work for instancce (I assume OSX has these problems just like any other OS -- who came up with the bright idea anyway on these newer sound chips that line in, line out, mic,. etc should be wired to the chip however the machine builder feels like instead of some standardization?)</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I'm not an Apple fan, but I'm just telling you how it is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" But , it raises the question : is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware    priced accordingly of course    for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted , like the netbook ?
"           Nope .
The OS is a big deal to Apple , but is not where they make the big profits .
They made money selling PowerPC systems at huge prices , and now make money selling plain ol ' x86 systems in a fancy case at a huge markup .
They do not want to give up that market just to sell more ( relatively ) low-margin copies of their OS .
This is also why they 'll never make a netbook -- netbooks are also low-margin .
They may eventually make something they 'll CALL a netbook , but it 'll be over $ 1000 placing it well out of the netbook price range .
" The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms .
I could just pay for a license to use it .
"           And that 's why they wo n't do it .
To run OSX , they want you to buy a $ 1000 + machine from them , not a $ 300 machine from someone else and then a $ 50 ( or even $ 100 ) OS from them .
          I should add as a practical matter , Jobs is a control freak and a perfectionist -- he wants things just so .
He also does not want OSX on other machines for aesthetic reasons -- it 'd probably just kill him if he found out someone hacked OSX onto some box then had volume control not work for instancce ( I assume OSX has these problems just like any other OS -- who came up with the bright idea anyway on these newer sound chips that line in , line out , mic, .
etc should be wired to the chip however the machine builder feels like instead of some standardization ?
)           I 'm not an Apple fan , but I 'm just telling you how it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course — for those people who want OS X on platform types Apple has not yet adopted, like the netbook?
"
          Nope.
The OS is a big deal to Apple, but is not where they make the big profits.
They made money selling PowerPC systems at huge prices, and now make money selling plain ol' x86 systems in a fancy case at a huge markup.
They do not want to give up that market just to sell more (relatively) low-margin copies of their OS.
This is also why they'll never make a netbook -- netbooks are also low-margin.
They may eventually make something they'll CALL a netbook, but it'll be over $1000 placing it well out of the netbook price range.
" The only reason OS X is not on my Eee is that I want to comply with the licensing terms.
I could just pay for a license to use it.
"
          And that's why they won't do it.
To run OSX, they want you to buy a $1000+ machine from them, not a $300 machine from someone else and then a $50 (or even $100) OS from them.
          I should add as a practical matter, Jobs is a control freak and a perfectionist -- he wants things just so.
He also does not want OSX on other machines for aesthetic reasons -- it'd probably just kill him if he found out someone hacked OSX onto some box then had  volume control not work for instancce (I assume OSX has these problems just like any other OS -- who came up with the bright idea anyway on these newer sound chips that line in, line out, mic,.
etc should be wired to the chip however the machine builder feels like instead of some standardization?
)
          I'm not an Apple fan, but I'm just telling you how it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959120</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>mindstrm</author>
	<datestamp>1257177060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I don't see how Apple can justify an $1,100 (USD) price difference. This isn't a little more expensive, this is double the price."</p><p>People keep buying them.   You don't sell things based on what they cost to make - you sell them based on how much people are willing to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I do n't see how Apple can justify an $ 1,100 ( USD ) price difference .
This is n't a little more expensive , this is double the price .
" People keep buying them .
You do n't sell things based on what they cost to make - you sell them based on how much people are willing to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I don't see how Apple can justify an $1,100 (USD) price difference.
This isn't a little more expensive, this is double the price.
"People keep buying them.
You don't sell things based on what they cost to make - you sell them based on how much people are willing to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958456</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how non-Apple product = cheap, bad quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how non-Apple product = cheap , bad quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how non-Apple product = cheap, bad quality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958032</id>
	<title>On a Eee??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm all for hackintosh systems, but an Atom processor is not sufficient to run OS X.  If you run it on it, you're going to get a very poor experience compared to other option.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm all for hackintosh systems , but an Atom processor is not sufficient to run OS X. If you run it on it , you 're going to get a very poor experience compared to other option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm all for hackintosh systems, but an Atom processor is not sufficient to run OS X.  If you run it on it, you're going to get a very poor experience compared to other option.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959458</id>
	<title>Re:Why continue to reward a company that does this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257180120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well said.</p><p>If you're whining so bloody much, don't buy Apple stuff. Simple.</p><p>And if you buy Mac OS X purely to run on a hackintosh, you're not a customer of Apple's, no matter how much you whine and protest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well said.If you 're whining so bloody much , do n't buy Apple stuff .
Simple.And if you buy Mac OS X purely to run on a hackintosh , you 're not a customer of Apple 's , no matter how much you whine and protest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well said.If you're whining so bloody much, don't buy Apple stuff.
Simple.And if you buy Mac OS X purely to run on a hackintosh, you're not a customer of Apple's, no matter how much you whine and protest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962576</id>
	<title>Re:There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way .</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257258480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers. They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model. Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.</p></div><p>Are you stupid, just trolling, or a stupid troll? Buying something from Apple does not make you a Microsoft customer.</p><p>P.S. Buying a new release of OSX every year and paying for something Microsoft would give you for free, <em>that</em> makes you an Apple customer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers .
They are wrong ; that would make them Microsoft customers , because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS 's as it 's business model .
Go buy it ; there 's a snappy new version out right now , I hear.Are you stupid , just trolling , or a stupid troll ?
Buying something from Apple does not make you a Microsoft customer.P.S .
Buying a new release of OSX every year and paying for something Microsoft would give you for free , that makes you an Apple customer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They seem to think that paying for a retail copy of OSX would make them Apple customers.
They are wrong; that would make them Microsoft customers, because Microsoft is the vendor that uses sales of stand-alone OS's as it's business model.
Go buy it; there's a snappy new version out right now, I hear.Are you stupid, just trolling, or a stupid troll?
Buying something from Apple does not make you a Microsoft customer.P.S.
Buying a new release of OSX every year and paying for something Microsoft would give you for free, that makes you an Apple customer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958148</id>
	<title>Apple won't support other hardware...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big reason apple doesn't want to allow users to put OSX on "non Apple" hardware is that it's a compatibility nightmare. I'd like to see Apple try to support all the hardware that Windows does. It'd be like a Vista fiasco all over again. That would put a dent in Apple's shiny PR history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big reason apple does n't want to allow users to put OSX on " non Apple " hardware is that it 's a compatibility nightmare .
I 'd like to see Apple try to support all the hardware that Windows does .
It 'd be like a Vista fiasco all over again .
That would put a dent in Apple 's shiny PR history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big reason apple doesn't want to allow users to put OSX on "non Apple" hardware is that it's a compatibility nightmare.
I'd like to see Apple try to support all the hardware that Windows does.
It'd be like a Vista fiasco all over again.
That would put a dent in Apple's shiny PR history.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336</id>
	<title>Crappy Summary, Iffy Article</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1257178800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is misleading. The original source of all this hubbub is <a href="http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news" title="tumblr.com">http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news</a> [tumblr.com]. Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build. They list three work around methods. There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary's wording strongly implies.</p><p>The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers, completely ignoring the economic realities involved. You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is misleading .
The original source of all this hubbub is http : //stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news [ tumblr.com ] .
Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build .
They list three work around methods .
There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary 's wording strongly implies.The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers , completely ignoring the economic realities involved .
You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is misleading.
The original source of all this hubbub is http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news [tumblr.com].
Basically someone noted that a lot of stuff in the kernel has changed so that the Atom processor that developer was using no longer works after the build.
They list three work around methods.
There is no inside information that this is an intentional attempt to block Atom processors as the summary's wording strongly implies.The summary then goes on to speculate about the improbable and impractical wet dream of the writer that Apple should start licensing OS X to generic PC makers, completely ignoring the economic realities involved.
You might as well end a summary of an article about MS losing an antitrust case by claiming it raises speculation MS will open source Windows under the GPL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958636</id>
	<title>why is this news?</title>
	<author>smash</author>
	<datestamp>1257174420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Running OS X on non-apple hardware is a violation of the EULA.  Apple are merely helping to ensure compliance with their EULA.  If you want to run OS X, buy a macintosh and do it legally.  If you don't then put some support into GNUstep, or one of the many other free desktops.
<p>
Yes, the OS is subsidized by the hardware sales.  Its apple's business model - deal with it.  If you don't want to pay for apple hardware, then don't run apple software.  Quite simple...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Running OS X on non-apple hardware is a violation of the EULA .
Apple are merely helping to ensure compliance with their EULA .
If you want to run OS X , buy a macintosh and do it legally .
If you do n't then put some support into GNUstep , or one of the many other free desktops .
Yes , the OS is subsidized by the hardware sales .
Its apple 's business model - deal with it .
If you do n't want to pay for apple hardware , then do n't run apple software .
Quite simple.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Running OS X on non-apple hardware is a violation of the EULA.
Apple are merely helping to ensure compliance with their EULA.
If you want to run OS X, buy a macintosh and do it legally.
If you don't then put some support into GNUstep, or one of the many other free desktops.
Yes, the OS is subsidized by the hardware sales.
Its apple's business model - deal with it.
If you don't want to pay for apple hardware, then don't run apple software.
Quite simple...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959154</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1257177360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why aren't you using current iMacs for comparison?</p><p>For A$2199 (price straight from the online Australian Apple store):</p><p>3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo<br>
4 GB RAM<br>
1TB disk<br>
27" IPS LED backlit 2560x1440 display (can be used as monitor)
Radeon HD 4670 graphics</p><p>Up your PC to match that, and you'll find the price difference is pretty much gone--it might even favor that Mac. Just upping your monitor to the quality, number of pixels, and pixel density of the iMac monitor will go a long way toward erasing the price difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why are n't you using current iMacs for comparison ? For A $ 2199 ( price straight from the online Australian Apple store ) : 3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM 1TB disk 27 " IPS LED backlit 2560x1440 display ( can be used as monitor ) Radeon HD 4670 graphicsUp your PC to match that , and you 'll find the price difference is pretty much gone--it might even favor that Mac .
Just upping your monitor to the quality , number of pixels , and pixel density of the iMac monitor will go a long way toward erasing the price difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why aren't you using current iMacs for comparison?For A$2199 (price straight from the online Australian Apple store):3.06 GHz Core 2 Duo
4 GB RAM
1TB disk
27" IPS LED backlit 2560x1440 display (can be used as monitor)
Radeon HD 4670 graphicsUp your PC to match that, and you'll find the price difference is pretty much gone--it might even favor that Mac.
Just upping your monitor to the quality, number of pixels, and pixel density of the iMac monitor will go a long way toward erasing the price difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958962</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>characterZer0</author>
	<datestamp>1257176040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.</p></div></blockquote><p>Criticism of Apple gets you -2, but claiming that criticism of Apple gets you -5 gets you +6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just broke Slashdot rule 5 , no criticism of Apple allowed , so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.Criticism of Apple gets you -2 , but claiming that criticism of Apple gets you -5 gets you + 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just broke Slashdot rule 5, no criticism of Apple allowed, so I expect the fanfoys will mod me to oblivion.Criticism of Apple gets you -2, but claiming that criticism of Apple gets you -5 gets you +6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957842</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPU</title>
	<author>cadeon</author>
	<datestamp>1257170340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LISTEN TO THIS MAN.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LISTEN TO THIS MAN .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LISTEN TO THIS MAN.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960142</id>
	<title>iDon't work on Atom processors.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257186000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(eom)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( eom )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(eom)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958780</id>
	<title>Hackintoshes were inevitable...</title>
	<author>initialE</author>
	<datestamp>1257175200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was bound to happen the moment Apple moved to the intel platform and started using commodity hardware. What this article is saying is that Apple will not consider a low-cost low-power computer with an Atom inside it. Guess you won't find that option in the next refresh of the mac mini. They're being anal of course, since they're actually adding extra code to lock out that processor series.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was bound to happen the moment Apple moved to the intel platform and started using commodity hardware .
What this article is saying is that Apple will not consider a low-cost low-power computer with an Atom inside it .
Guess you wo n't find that option in the next refresh of the mac mini .
They 're being anal of course , since they 're actually adding extra code to lock out that processor series .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was bound to happen the moment Apple moved to the intel platform and started using commodity hardware.
What this article is saying is that Apple will not consider a low-cost low-power computer with an Atom inside it.
Guess you won't find that option in the next refresh of the mac mini.
They're being anal of course, since they're actually adding extra code to lock out that processor series.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958258</id>
	<title>Personally, I'd have OSX installed right now</title>
	<author>alizard</author>
	<datestamp>1257172440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>on Virtualbox running on my Wintel box on a Kubuntu Karmic host if Apple would sell it to me. I already have XP installed. I want to run the best apps available on my data without having to care what OS they run on. I'd also like to be able to write reviews for apps running on the major platforms without changing machines.</htmltext>
<tokenext>on Virtualbox running on my Wintel box on a Kubuntu Karmic host if Apple would sell it to me .
I already have XP installed .
I want to run the best apps available on my data without having to care what OS they run on .
I 'd also like to be able to write reviews for apps running on the major platforms without changing machines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on Virtualbox running on my Wintel box on a Kubuntu Karmic host if Apple would sell it to me.
I already have XP installed.
I want to run the best apps available on my data without having to care what OS they run on.
I'd also like to be able to write reviews for apps running on the major platforms without changing machines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957438</id>
	<title>Re:Mac OS X for generic machines.</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1257168660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The expense of adding the support personnel to handle the 9 million driver problems that pop up and the stupid little proprietary pieces of kit on the motherboards are not really worth the effort.  Hardware and software from one source, I KNOW who to scream at when it doesn't work!  If you like the OS so much buy the hardware, if you don't buy the hardware you don't get the OS you want.   It's that simple.   The myth that it's vastly overpriced just gos to show how lazy the person perpetuating that myth is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The expense of adding the support personnel to handle the 9 million driver problems that pop up and the stupid little proprietary pieces of kit on the motherboards are not really worth the effort .
Hardware and software from one source , I KNOW who to scream at when it does n't work !
If you like the OS so much buy the hardware , if you do n't buy the hardware you do n't get the OS you want .
It 's that simple .
The myth that it 's vastly overpriced just gos to show how lazy the person perpetuating that myth is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The expense of adding the support personnel to handle the 9 million driver problems that pop up and the stupid little proprietary pieces of kit on the motherboards are not really worth the effort.
Hardware and software from one source, I KNOW who to scream at when it doesn't work!
If you like the OS so much buy the hardware, if you don't buy the hardware you don't get the OS you want.
It's that simple.
The myth that it's vastly overpriced just gos to show how lazy the person perpetuating that myth is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959072</id>
	<title>Microsoft trolling</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257176700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Many of the replies on this article give a fishy smell. I wonder how much money Microsoft is this FUD costing Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many of the replies on this article give a fishy smell .
I wonder how much money Microsoft is this FUD costing Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many of the replies on this article give a fishy smell.
I wonder how much money Microsoft is this FUD costing Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958062</id>
	<title>What I want from Microsoft</title>
	<author>ctmurray</author>
	<datestamp>1257171420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I wish Microsoft would quit selling its OS to any idiot who thinks they can cobble together hardware and sell it as a computer. I want a system integrated so that all the parts work together without having to worry about any conflicts, worked so well that I have to reboot or unplug hardware to get it to be recognized (as I am having with my digitial microscope camera). Also with a much more limited set of hardware I would expect my operating system to not slow down over time and randomly forget how to launch powerpoint (as happened today). My employer even tries to mitigate these problems by purchasing all the same models of crappy computer and rigidly enforcing what software we can have loaded. We get virus patches updated at lease 2x per week. <br> <br>

I would even be willing to help my employer pay more for this fully integrated hardware/software combination. <br> <br>

Thankfully I get to go home each day to my Macs.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish Microsoft would quit selling its OS to any idiot who thinks they can cobble together hardware and sell it as a computer .
I want a system integrated so that all the parts work together without having to worry about any conflicts , worked so well that I have to reboot or unplug hardware to get it to be recognized ( as I am having with my digitial microscope camera ) .
Also with a much more limited set of hardware I would expect my operating system to not slow down over time and randomly forget how to launch powerpoint ( as happened today ) .
My employer even tries to mitigate these problems by purchasing all the same models of crappy computer and rigidly enforcing what software we can have loaded .
We get virus patches updated at lease 2x per week .
I would even be willing to help my employer pay more for this fully integrated hardware/software combination .
Thankfully I get to go home each day to my Macs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish Microsoft would quit selling its OS to any idiot who thinks they can cobble together hardware and sell it as a computer.
I want a system integrated so that all the parts work together without having to worry about any conflicts, worked so well that I have to reboot or unplug hardware to get it to be recognized (as I am having with my digitial microscope camera).
Also with a much more limited set of hardware I would expect my operating system to not slow down over time and randomly forget how to launch powerpoint (as happened today).
My employer even tries to mitigate these problems by purchasing all the same models of crappy computer and rigidly enforcing what software we can have loaded.
We get virus patches updated at lease 2x per week.
I would even be willing to help my employer pay more for this fully integrated hardware/software combination.
Thankfully I get to go home each day to my Macs.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330</id>
	<title>Raises a question?</title>
	<author>MBCook</author>
	<datestamp>1257168300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware &mdash; priced accordingly of course[...]</p></div></blockquote><p>No it doesn't! You did. <i>YOU</i> want that, so <i>YOU</i> asked it. It isn't inherit to the facts. An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?"
</p><p>The statement in the summary is equivalent to:</p><blockquote><div><p>Today ADM said it will no longer sell soybeans to people with the letter 'R' in their name. That raises the question - shouldn't ADM make soybeans that taste like root beer?</p></div></blockquote><p>"Apple stops supporting something it never supported". What a story. Is anyone <i>surprised</i>? In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do. Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
</p><p>I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went <b>NUTS</b>. Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
</p><p>No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
</p><p>How <i>dare</i> Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
</p><p>Come on. I know people on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this <i>really a surprise</i>? This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , it raises the question : is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware    priced accordingly of course [ ... ] No it does n't !
You did .
YOU want that , so YOU asked it .
It is n't inherit to the facts .
An inherent question would be " If Apple is n't support them Atom , then what chip will they use for [ speculated product ] ?
" The statement in the summary is equivalent to : Today ADM said it will no longer sell soybeans to people with the letter 'R ' in their name .
That raises the question - should n't ADM make soybeans that taste like root beer ?
" Apple stops supporting something it never supported " .
What a story .
Is anyone surprised ?
In fact , since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple 's hardware sales ( maybe not by much , but they must ) , this is an obvious thing to do .
Why maintain support for something you do n't use and is probably causing you some financial harm .
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS .
Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers .
No , wait , Apple never officially supported those ( if they had existed ) , and Dell did n't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons , so no one was surprised .
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who are n't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen ?
Come on .
I know people on / .
want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise ?
This is n't much of a story , it 's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> But, it raises the question: is it time for Apple to sell a license for non-Apple hardware — priced accordingly of course[...]No it doesn't!
You did.
YOU want that, so YOU asked it.
It isn't inherit to the facts.
An inherent question would be "If Apple isn't support them Atom, then what chip will they use for [speculated product]?
"
The statement in the summary is equivalent to:Today ADM said it will no longer sell soybeans to people with the letter 'R' in their name.
That raises the question - shouldn't ADM make soybeans that taste like root beer?
"Apple stops supporting something it never supported".
What a story.
Is anyone surprised?
In fact, since hackintoshes are almost certainly eating into Apple's hardware sales (maybe not by much, but they must), this is an obvious thing to do.
Why maintain support for something you don't use and is probably causing you some financial harm.
I remember with Apple stopped shipping drivers VESA Local Bus sound cards and the internet went NUTS.
Same when Dell stopped shipping PPC drivers with their Xeon servers.
No, wait, Apple never officially supported those (if they had existed), and Dell didn't tell people they would ship PPC drivers with Xeons, so no one was surprised.
How dare Apple stop supporting unsupported hardware for people who aren't paying Apple for the software they may have simply stolen?
Come on.
I know people on /.
want to be able to put OS X on any computer... but is this really a surprise?
This isn't much of a story, it's just another excuse for the licensing/purchasing/monopoly/first-sale debate we have in every Apple article.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957250</id>
	<title>I'm back to Win 7</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257167880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've learnt an important thing about Apple over the past few years: they want to be worse than MS, but don't have the market share to do so. As they've increased in popularity over the past few years, they've done more restrictive things that MS would ever dream of. I'm fed up, and having installed Win 7 RTM a few weeks ago, I'm moving back to Windows for my main workstation. The servers will stay Linux, having moved a few years ago from FreeBSD.</p><p>With Windows 7, there is really no reason to choose Apple over Microsoft except for the fashion statement.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've learnt an important thing about Apple over the past few years : they want to be worse than MS , but do n't have the market share to do so .
As they 've increased in popularity over the past few years , they 've done more restrictive things that MS would ever dream of .
I 'm fed up , and having installed Win 7 RTM a few weeks ago , I 'm moving back to Windows for my main workstation .
The servers will stay Linux , having moved a few years ago from FreeBSD.With Windows 7 , there is really no reason to choose Apple over Microsoft except for the fashion statement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've learnt an important thing about Apple over the past few years: they want to be worse than MS, but don't have the market share to do so.
As they've increased in popularity over the past few years, they've done more restrictive things that MS would ever dream of.
I'm fed up, and having installed Win 7 RTM a few weeks ago, I'm moving back to Windows for my main workstation.
The servers will stay Linux, having moved a few years ago from FreeBSD.With Windows 7, there is really no reason to choose Apple over Microsoft except for the fashion statement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957288</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>TerminaMorte</author>
	<datestamp>1257168000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Higher quality product?

Same internals as any PC with a shiny case.

That's some high quality shit right there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher quality product ?
Same internals as any PC with a shiny case .
That 's some high quality shit right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher quality product?
Same internals as any PC with a shiny case.
That's some high quality shit right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967318</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257238800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an old IBM RS/6000 CHRP machine that WOULD have run OS 8, except that Apple restricted it away. Kind of Ironic, as the old Apple Workgroup Servers mostly ran on AIX, and the IBM box will run both AIX and Windows NT just fine.</p><p>So, next time you get on Slashdot and gush about how evil Microsoft is for being closed and terrible, and how wonderful Apple is for being open and good, try to remember that It's mostly the other way around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an old IBM RS/6000 CHRP machine that WOULD have run OS 8 , except that Apple restricted it away .
Kind of Ironic , as the old Apple Workgroup Servers mostly ran on AIX , and the IBM box will run both AIX and Windows NT just fine.So , next time you get on Slashdot and gush about how evil Microsoft is for being closed and terrible , and how wonderful Apple is for being open and good , try to remember that It 's mostly the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an old IBM RS/6000 CHRP machine that WOULD have run OS 8, except that Apple restricted it away.
Kind of Ironic, as the old Apple Workgroup Servers mostly ran on AIX, and the IBM box will run both AIX and Windows NT just fine.So, next time you get on Slashdot and gush about how evil Microsoft is for being closed and terrible, and how wonderful Apple is for being open and good, try to remember that It's mostly the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957700</id>
	<title>Re:Mac OS X for generic machines.</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1257169680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.</p></div></blockquote><p>Right, because its impossible for changes in either the licensing model or the environment in which the licensing model is applied to have any effect on the outcome: if they license MacOS separate from Apple hardware, the results must be exactly the same as the time they did it in the past, no matter what the market situation is like at the time, and no matter how they manage the separate licensing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They have licensed Mac OS before , so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.Right , because its impossible for changes in either the licensing model or the environment in which the licensing model is applied to have any effect on the outcome : if they license MacOS separate from Apple hardware , the results must be exactly the same as the time they did it in the past , no matter what the market situation is like at the time , and no matter how they manage the separate licensing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.Right, because its impossible for changes in either the licensing model or the environment in which the licensing model is applied to have any effect on the outcome: if they license MacOS separate from Apple hardware, the results must be exactly the same as the time they did it in the past, no matter what the market situation is like at the time, and no matter how they manage the separate licensing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957598</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957090</id>
	<title>Who wants to update??</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1257167220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This right after the 'people who don't update because we've been known to harass and accuse them via patches have more malware' article.  It's like Microsoft and Apple are trying to compete and see who can belittle and harass their customers the most.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This right after the 'people who do n't update because we 've been known to harass and accuse them via patches have more malware ' article .
It 's like Microsoft and Apple are trying to compete and see who can belittle and harass their customers the most .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This right after the 'people who don't update because we've been known to harass and accuse them via patches have more malware' article.
It's like Microsoft and Apple are trying to compete and see who can belittle and harass their customers the most.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962634</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257259020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Is the 13" MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability?</p></div><p>Yes. It's three inches bigger and notably heavier.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, it's more expensive, but we're talking about Apple and they're always a little more expensive because it's a higher quality product.</p></div><p>False. The case designs on the smaller macs are fragile (you can actually drop a EEE) and they use PCBs made by Foxconn like everyone else, to the same standards as ASUS, Lenovo, or whatever. Which is to say, mediocre.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The 13" MBP is very thin and light, it's not sub-12 inches</p></div><p>It's not sub-12-inches. You answered your own question. Yes, it really is that much different.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X, Apple already makes one.</p></div><p>It's not even in the same size class. Fail. A 13" computer is still big enough to be unwieldy. Frankly 12" is pushing it a little bit, but I have gigantic hands so that where I've settled. Ask your girlfriend if one inch makes a difference.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makers</p></div><p>This much is true. There's no way they can provide the same level of support for everyone's hardware that they do for their own. On the other hand, Linux will destroy OSX eventually, which is probably less true than it is for Windows. Apple gave away central dispatch, which is their only real advantage after integration, and I have had <em>plenty</em> of problems with apple software and apple hardware. I will refer back to the B&amp;W G3 Rev.1 UDMA data corruption issue, for which Apple said the solution was to buy third party software or actually buy a new IDE card (with the attendant Mac Tax of about 400\%, this is not an exaggeration either, I priced them.) Apple could have made a software workaround in the form of a new disk driver that would enable multi-word DMA rather than ultra-DMA, but instead they expected you to give FWB forty bucks to get one. The idea that Apple software will work perfectly on Apple hardware is an <strong>absurdist fanboy myth</strong>. Yep, I said it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the 13 " MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability ? Yes .
It 's three inches bigger and notably heavier.Yes , it 's more expensive , but we 're talking about Apple and they 're always a little more expensive because it 's a higher quality product.False .
The case designs on the smaller macs are fragile ( you can actually drop a EEE ) and they use PCBs made by Foxconn like everyone else , to the same standards as ASUS , Lenovo , or whatever .
Which is to say , mediocre.The 13 " MBP is very thin and light , it 's not sub-12 inchesIt 's not sub-12-inches .
You answered your own question .
Yes , it really is that much different.if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X , Apple already makes one.It 's not even in the same size class .
Fail. A 13 " computer is still big enough to be unwieldy .
Frankly 12 " is pushing it a little bit , but I have gigantic hands so that where I 've settled .
Ask your girlfriend if one inch makes a difference.I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makersThis much is true .
There 's no way they can provide the same level of support for everyone 's hardware that they do for their own .
On the other hand , Linux will destroy OSX eventually , which is probably less true than it is for Windows .
Apple gave away central dispatch , which is their only real advantage after integration , and I have had plenty of problems with apple software and apple hardware .
I will refer back to the B&amp;W G3 Rev.1 UDMA data corruption issue , for which Apple said the solution was to buy third party software or actually buy a new IDE card ( with the attendant Mac Tax of about 400 \ % , this is not an exaggeration either , I priced them .
) Apple could have made a software workaround in the form of a new disk driver that would enable multi-word DMA rather than ultra-DMA , but instead they expected you to give FWB forty bucks to get one .
The idea that Apple software will work perfectly on Apple hardware is an absurdist fanboy myth .
Yep , I said it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the 13" MacbookPro or Macbook really that much different than the Eee in terms of portability?Yes.
It's three inches bigger and notably heavier.Yes, it's more expensive, but we're talking about Apple and they're always a little more expensive because it's a higher quality product.False.
The case designs on the smaller macs are fragile (you can actually drop a EEE) and they use PCBs made by Foxconn like everyone else, to the same standards as ASUS, Lenovo, or whatever.
Which is to say, mediocre.The 13" MBP is very thin and light, it's not sub-12 inchesIt's not sub-12-inches.
You answered your own question.
Yes, it really is that much different.if you want a highly portable computer that runs OS X, Apple already makes one.It's not even in the same size class.
Fail. A 13" computer is still big enough to be unwieldy.
Frankly 12" is pushing it a little bit, but I have gigantic hands so that where I've settled.
Ask your girlfriend if one inch makes a difference.I think it would be a stupid idea for Apple to license their OS to other hardware makersThis much is true.
There's no way they can provide the same level of support for everyone's hardware that they do for their own.
On the other hand, Linux will destroy OSX eventually, which is probably less true than it is for Windows.
Apple gave away central dispatch, which is their only real advantage after integration, and I have had plenty of problems with apple software and apple hardware.
I will refer back to the B&amp;W G3 Rev.1 UDMA data corruption issue, for which Apple said the solution was to buy third party software or actually buy a new IDE card (with the attendant Mac Tax of about 400\%, this is not an exaggeration either, I priced them.
) Apple could have made a software workaround in the form of a new disk driver that would enable multi-word DMA rather than ultra-DMA, but instead they expected you to give FWB forty bucks to get one.
The idea that Apple software will work perfectly on Apple hardware is an absurdist fanboy myth.
Yep, I said it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29965728</id>
	<title>Re:There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way .</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1257273780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>People buy Apple hardware because of the software. This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now. You would think it would sink in at some point.</p></div><p>It's true that some people only buy Apple hardware because of the software, but I think it's valid for Apple to argue that they aren't a hardware vendor or software vendor, but an integrated solution vendor.  They make the hardware and the software and sell them together in a package.  This has the advantage that so many people are pointing to when they say, "It just works."
</p><p>Well yes, it does just work.  It's not so much because Apple's engineers are better than Microsoft's or Dell's or whoever's (though they may be).  The real reason things work so well is that they were designed to work well as a package.  Apple sells you a laptop and they chose the LCD screen, the touchpad, the webcam, and all the other components for that laptop.  In some cases the components are manufactured for that laptop.  The drivers for those components are written not just for OSX, but for that notebook.  In some cases, Apple rewrites parts of its OS for that notebook.  If they include a new component that has a new feature, that feature is integrated on an OS level by the OS vendor, not by some 3rd party hack.  Because everything is handled at the level of treating the notebook as a product instead of treating the various components and drivers and software packages as different (and sometimes competing) products, you end up with a notebook were everything is integrated and everything works pretty much as-advertised.
</p><p>This works because Apple is selling a series of integrated products, and only sells a handful of models at a time.  Even among the different models, the components and features and capabilities are fairly uniform.  For Apple to sell a stand-alone OS would be more than the introduction of an additional product; it would mean a big change to their development philosophy.  They would have to try to make their OS a widely supported vanilla software package with the ability to loosely take advantage of any mishmash of capabilities rather than a tightly integrated product.  I'm sure that they could manage it, but it's not clear to me why they would want to.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>People buy Apple hardware because of the software .
This is not by accident , it 's not a secret , and it 's been going on three decades now .
You would think it would sink in at some point.It 's true that some people only buy Apple hardware because of the software , but I think it 's valid for Apple to argue that they are n't a hardware vendor or software vendor , but an integrated solution vendor .
They make the hardware and the software and sell them together in a package .
This has the advantage that so many people are pointing to when they say , " It just works .
" Well yes , it does just work .
It 's not so much because Apple 's engineers are better than Microsoft 's or Dell 's or whoever 's ( though they may be ) .
The real reason things work so well is that they were designed to work well as a package .
Apple sells you a laptop and they chose the LCD screen , the touchpad , the webcam , and all the other components for that laptop .
In some cases the components are manufactured for that laptop .
The drivers for those components are written not just for OSX , but for that notebook .
In some cases , Apple rewrites parts of its OS for that notebook .
If they include a new component that has a new feature , that feature is integrated on an OS level by the OS vendor , not by some 3rd party hack .
Because everything is handled at the level of treating the notebook as a product instead of treating the various components and drivers and software packages as different ( and sometimes competing ) products , you end up with a notebook were everything is integrated and everything works pretty much as-advertised .
This works because Apple is selling a series of integrated products , and only sells a handful of models at a time .
Even among the different models , the components and features and capabilities are fairly uniform .
For Apple to sell a stand-alone OS would be more than the introduction of an additional product ; it would mean a big change to their development philosophy .
They would have to try to make their OS a widely supported vanilla software package with the ability to loosely take advantage of any mishmash of capabilities rather than a tightly integrated product .
I 'm sure that they could manage it , but it 's not clear to me why they would want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People buy Apple hardware because of the software.
This is not by accident, it's not a secret, and it's been going on three decades now.
You would think it would sink in at some point.It's true that some people only buy Apple hardware because of the software, but I think it's valid for Apple to argue that they aren't a hardware vendor or software vendor, but an integrated solution vendor.
They make the hardware and the software and sell them together in a package.
This has the advantage that so many people are pointing to when they say, "It just works.
"
Well yes, it does just work.
It's not so much because Apple's engineers are better than Microsoft's or Dell's or whoever's (though they may be).
The real reason things work so well is that they were designed to work well as a package.
Apple sells you a laptop and they chose the LCD screen, the touchpad, the webcam, and all the other components for that laptop.
In some cases the components are manufactured for that laptop.
The drivers for those components are written not just for OSX, but for that notebook.
In some cases, Apple rewrites parts of its OS for that notebook.
If they include a new component that has a new feature, that feature is integrated on an OS level by the OS vendor, not by some 3rd party hack.
Because everything is handled at the level of treating the notebook as a product instead of treating the various components and drivers and software packages as different (and sometimes competing) products, you end up with a notebook were everything is integrated and everything works pretty much as-advertised.
This works because Apple is selling a series of integrated products, and only sells a handful of models at a time.
Even among the different models, the components and features and capabilities are fairly uniform.
For Apple to sell a stand-alone OS would be more than the introduction of an additional product; it would mean a big change to their development philosophy.
They would have to try to make their OS a widely supported vanilla software package with the ability to loosely take advantage of any mishmash of capabilities rather than a tightly integrated product.
I'm sure that they could manage it, but it's not clear to me why they would want to.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961380</id>
	<title>Wish they'd disable it on all CPUs</title>
	<author>Slashcrap</author>
	<datestamp>1257244560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Then kill all the users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Then kill all the users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then kill all the users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960202</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPU</title>
	<author>willy\_me</author>
	<datestamp>1257186480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, the core duo is also a 32bit chip and is supported by 10.6.  In addition, the Atom has a 64bit variant.  It is typically found on desktops where the 32bit version is found in netbooks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , the core duo is also a 32bit chip and is supported by 10.6 .
In addition , the Atom has a 64bit variant .
It is typically found on desktops where the 32bit version is found in netbooks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, the core duo is also a 32bit chip and is supported by 10.6.
In addition, the Atom has a 64bit variant.
It is typically found on desktops where the 32bit version is found in netbooks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963714</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>CompMD</author>
	<datestamp>1257265320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The clones were really good machines, and that was a problem for Apple.  I have a PowerComputer PowerCenter Pro with a 416MHz G3 CPU upgrade in it, and that is a nice little box even today.  My favorite oddball Mac is my Motorola Starmax 4000/160.  It was the closest thing to blending a PC and a Mac.  Accessories were cheap, and the machines were well built and reliable.  I can certainly see why Apple became afraid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The clones were really good machines , and that was a problem for Apple .
I have a PowerComputer PowerCenter Pro with a 416MHz G3 CPU upgrade in it , and that is a nice little box even today .
My favorite oddball Mac is my Motorola Starmax 4000/160 .
It was the closest thing to blending a PC and a Mac .
Accessories were cheap , and the machines were well built and reliable .
I can certainly see why Apple became afraid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The clones were really good machines, and that was a problem for Apple.
I have a PowerComputer PowerCenter Pro with a 416MHz G3 CPU upgrade in it, and that is a nice little box even today.
My favorite oddball Mac is my Motorola Starmax 4000/160.
It was the closest thing to blending a PC and a Mac.
Accessories were cheap, and the machines were well built and reliable.
I can certainly see why Apple became afraid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957316</id>
	<title>A tale of contrasts.</title>
	<author>juuri</author>
	<datestamp>1257168180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple is a weird company. On the one hand you have many parts of it which work on open concepts, even encourage them and contribute. On the other you have what appears to be an old contingent of assholes who in any attempt to maintain relevant within the growing beast that is Apple (not Apple Computer) do anything they can to wrestle the slightest bit of profit or just be dicks in general.</p><p>I am a huge fan of OSX as a client OS and have been a fan ever since NeXT "bought" Apple. The laptops are great gear and some of their ideas for media consumption are still unmatched. However Apple the company is becoming harder to stomach for me personally as they become the big kids on the block, unafraid of quickly fading into irreverence like they were only half a decade ago, throwing their weight around, "just cuz". This is a perfect example as disabling support for the Atom is an *active* change that affords the company absolutely nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is a weird company .
On the one hand you have many parts of it which work on open concepts , even encourage them and contribute .
On the other you have what appears to be an old contingent of assholes who in any attempt to maintain relevant within the growing beast that is Apple ( not Apple Computer ) do anything they can to wrestle the slightest bit of profit or just be dicks in general.I am a huge fan of OSX as a client OS and have been a fan ever since NeXT " bought " Apple .
The laptops are great gear and some of their ideas for media consumption are still unmatched .
However Apple the company is becoming harder to stomach for me personally as they become the big kids on the block , unafraid of quickly fading into irreverence like they were only half a decade ago , throwing their weight around , " just cuz " .
This is a perfect example as disabling support for the Atom is an * active * change that affords the company absolutely nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is a weird company.
On the one hand you have many parts of it which work on open concepts, even encourage them and contribute.
On the other you have what appears to be an old contingent of assholes who in any attempt to maintain relevant within the growing beast that is Apple (not Apple Computer) do anything they can to wrestle the slightest bit of profit or just be dicks in general.I am a huge fan of OSX as a client OS and have been a fan ever since NeXT "bought" Apple.
The laptops are great gear and some of their ideas for media consumption are still unmatched.
However Apple the company is becoming harder to stomach for me personally as they become the big kids on the block, unafraid of quickly fading into irreverence like they were only half a decade ago, throwing their weight around, "just cuz".
This is a perfect example as disabling support for the Atom is an *active* change that affords the company absolutely nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962858</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>sam0vi</author>
	<datestamp>1257260640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.</p></div><p>Really?? Tell that to Microsoft. They might not agree.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple knows where the money is , and individually licensing the software is n't it.Really ? ?
Tell that to Microsoft .
They might not agree .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.Really??
Tell that to Microsoft.
They might not agree.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957664</id>
	<title>Re:What is the problem</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1257169560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Funny, my Dell notebook has not failed me once since I bought it.  Why should I pay inflated prices for (at best) equally reliable hardware from Apple?  I do not personally want to run OS X (proprietary), but I know plenty of people who do and who really cannot afford the ridiculous prices Apple is demanding for its hardware.  OS X is a decent operating system; why should people be forced to pay for a specially branded computer just so they can run that system?<br> <br>

I understand that Apple is trying to create an artificial market where it can thrive, but do not confuse that with "sensible."  I know that Apple does not give a damn about people who do not want to spend money on the whole "Apple package," but those people do actually exist.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny , my Dell notebook has not failed me once since I bought it .
Why should I pay inflated prices for ( at best ) equally reliable hardware from Apple ?
I do not personally want to run OS X ( proprietary ) , but I know plenty of people who do and who really can not afford the ridiculous prices Apple is demanding for its hardware .
OS X is a decent operating system ; why should people be forced to pay for a specially branded computer just so they can run that system ?
I understand that Apple is trying to create an artificial market where it can thrive , but do not confuse that with " sensible .
" I know that Apple does not give a damn about people who do not want to spend money on the whole " Apple package , " but those people do actually exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny, my Dell notebook has not failed me once since I bought it.
Why should I pay inflated prices for (at best) equally reliable hardware from Apple?
I do not personally want to run OS X (proprietary), but I know plenty of people who do and who really cannot afford the ridiculous prices Apple is demanding for its hardware.
OS X is a decent operating system; why should people be forced to pay for a specially branded computer just so they can run that system?
I understand that Apple is trying to create an artificial market where it can thrive, but do not confuse that with "sensible.
"  I know that Apple does not give a damn about people who do not want to spend money on the whole "Apple package," but those people do actually exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957598</id>
	<title>Re:Mac OS X for generic machines.</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1257169320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware.</p></div><p>It would be pretty hard for Apple to break into another market, if Apple is out of business<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:}</p><p>They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware , and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac , they 'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers do n't get to pick their hardware.It would be pretty hard for Apple to break into another market , if Apple is out of business : } They have licensed Mac OS before , so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware.It would be pretty hard for Apple to break into another market, if Apple is out of business :}They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959786</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.</p></div><p>I think Microsoft, Oracle, and a number of other companies would like a word with you</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple knows where the money is , and individually licensing the software is n't it.I think Microsoft , Oracle , and a number of other companies would like a word with you</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.I think Microsoft, Oracle, and a number of other companies would like a word with you
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958476</id>
	<title>Re:No.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257173520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, close. What actually happened was that the MacOS port to the Intel boxes ran faster than the Mac hardware. And that was considered A Bad Thing by the beancounters that were running Apple at the time. They failed to see the upside potential.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , close .
What actually happened was that the MacOS port to the Intel boxes ran faster than the Mac hardware .
And that was considered A Bad Thing by the beancounters that were running Apple at the time .
They failed to see the upside potential .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, close.
What actually happened was that the MacOS port to the Intel boxes ran faster than the Mac hardware.
And that was considered A Bad Thing by the beancounters that were running Apple at the time.
They failed to see the upside potential.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960554</id>
	<title>Re:Crappy Summary, Iffy Article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The summary is misleading. The original source of all this hubbub is <a href="http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news" title="tumblr.com" rel="nofollow">http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news</a> [tumblr.com]....</p></div><p> <b>Of course</b> this is at the bottom of the page. It's the first useful post all the way down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is misleading .
The original source of all this hubbub is http : //stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news [ tumblr.com ] .... Of course this is at the bottom of the page .
It 's the first useful post all the way down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is misleading.
The original source of all this hubbub is http://stellarola.tumblr.com/post/225234492/10-6-2-kills-atom-and-other-news [tumblr.com].... Of course this is at the bottom of the page.
It's the first useful post all the way down.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959002</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Hashi Lebwohl</author>
	<datestamp>1257176280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple is too expensive for you? WELL DON'T BUY ONE. Simple, problem solved. Sheesh.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple is too expensive for you ?
WELL DO N'T BUY ONE .
Simple , problem solved .
Sheesh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple is too expensive for you?
WELL DON'T BUY ONE.
Simple, problem solved.
Sheesh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29966386</id>
	<title>Snow leopard is more frustrating than anything els</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257276960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's an excellent idea, because it's not like apple fucked over every ipod classic owner on the planet when they attempted to kill palm pre syncing via itunes. What'll they fuck-up this time? I don't mean to vent my frustration, but macs used to be "it just works", now they are more like "snow leopard is a big pile of shit and we are not going to do anything about it. Oh, all POP emails are not compatible with our software? You can't sync your iPod? Well, who gives a fuck. We sure don't, it's not like we make our money on software, right?".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's an excellent idea , because it 's not like apple fucked over every ipod classic owner on the planet when they attempted to kill palm pre syncing via itunes .
What 'll they fuck-up this time ?
I do n't mean to vent my frustration , but macs used to be " it just works " , now they are more like " snow leopard is a big pile of shit and we are not going to do anything about it .
Oh , all POP emails are not compatible with our software ?
You ca n't sync your iPod ?
Well , who gives a fuck .
We sure do n't , it 's not like we make our money on software , right ?
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's an excellent idea, because it's not like apple fucked over every ipod classic owner on the planet when they attempted to kill palm pre syncing via itunes.
What'll they fuck-up this time?
I don't mean to vent my frustration, but macs used to be "it just works", now they are more like "snow leopard is a big pile of shit and we are not going to do anything about it.
Oh, all POP emails are not compatible with our software?
You can't sync your iPod?
Well, who gives a fuck.
We sure don't, it's not like we make our money on software, right?
".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960644</id>
	<title>Re:There won't be any "open OSX"; and by the way .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257190920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right on!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957776</id>
	<title>Re:"Apple Labeled" License Compliance</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1257169980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Label" is a term of art referring to the affixation of a mark.  It means "an informative display of written or graphic matter, such as a logo, title, or similar marking, affixed to goods or services to identify their source."  (Black's, 8th Ed.)  The label need not be a trademark, but it often is.</p><p>Your Apple sticker does not identify the machine as Apple-sourced, nor was the machine affixed as such <em>by</em> Apple. It is therefore not Apple-labeled, no matter how many stickers you slap on it.  It has been tested in court, many times, and comes up quite often in counterfeit goods cases.</p><p>That qualifies as a "nice try" defense, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Label " is a term of art referring to the affixation of a mark .
It means " an informative display of written or graphic matter , such as a logo , title , or similar marking , affixed to goods or services to identify their source .
" ( Black 's , 8th Ed .
) The label need not be a trademark , but it often is.Your Apple sticker does not identify the machine as Apple-sourced , nor was the machine affixed as such by Apple .
It is therefore not Apple-labeled , no matter how many stickers you slap on it .
It has been tested in court , many times , and comes up quite often in counterfeit goods cases.That qualifies as a " nice try " defense , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Label" is a term of art referring to the affixation of a mark.
It means "an informative display of written or graphic matter, such as a logo, title, or similar marking, affixed to goods or services to identify their source.
"  (Black's, 8th Ed.
)  The label need not be a trademark, but it often is.Your Apple sticker does not identify the machine as Apple-sourced, nor was the machine affixed as such by Apple.
It is therefore not Apple-labeled, no matter how many stickers you slap on it.
It has been tested in court, many times, and comes up quite often in counterfeit goods cases.That qualifies as a "nice try" defense, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957290</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957808</id>
	<title>ah, Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257170160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SO much less evil than Microsoft!</p><p>Linux on the desktop, Android on the cellphone, and everyone else can kiss my ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SO much less evil than Microsoft ! Linux on the desktop , Android on the cellphone , and everyone else can kiss my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SO much less evil than Microsoft!Linux on the desktop, Android on the cellphone, and everyone else can kiss my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958178</id>
	<title>Re:Um...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.</p></div></blockquote><p>To be more precise, individually licensing the software <b>for $129</b> isn't it. If Apple could charge $400 for MacOS X, perhaps it'd be worthwhile. The problem is that the people who loudly proclaim they'll happily pay for a license will probably hide back into their basements, and pirate a copy instead, because the price they were willing to pay was the one subsidized by "vastly overpriced" hardware.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple knows where the money is , and individually licensing the software is n't it.To be more precise , individually licensing the software for $ 129 is n't it .
If Apple could charge $ 400 for MacOS X , perhaps it 'd be worthwhile .
The problem is that the people who loudly proclaim they 'll happily pay for a license will probably hide back into their basements , and pirate a copy instead , because the price they were willing to pay was the one subsidized by " vastly overpriced " hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple knows where the money is, and individually licensing the software isn't it.To be more precise, individually licensing the software for $129 isn't it.
If Apple could charge $400 for MacOS X, perhaps it'd be worthwhile.
The problem is that the people who loudly proclaim they'll happily pay for a license will probably hide back into their basements, and pirate a copy instead, because the price they were willing to pay was the one subsidized by "vastly overpriced" hardware.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257178860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What a load of shit. Yeah, you are the first person on slashdot to diss Apple. Look Microsoft, go fuck of to neowin, we don't need your kind of bullshit here.</p><p>I have owned lots of latops, have 2 brand new ones from work, a hp and a dell. Not the cheapest of the lot, not the most expensive. I would put my mac up against those machines, any day and do. They often dont' sleep properly, and they take ONE minute to sleep when they do, whereas my mac sleeps in less than a second, wakes up in a second to.</p><p>I pay extra for that, and a 1000 other things that Apple have done to make working with computers a pleasure again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What a load of shit .
Yeah , you are the first person on slashdot to diss Apple .
Look Microsoft , go fuck of to neowin , we do n't need your kind of bullshit here.I have owned lots of latops , have 2 brand new ones from work , a hp and a dell .
Not the cheapest of the lot , not the most expensive .
I would put my mac up against those machines , any day and do .
They often dont ' sleep properly , and they take ONE minute to sleep when they do , whereas my mac sleeps in less than a second , wakes up in a second to.I pay extra for that , and a 1000 other things that Apple have done to make working with computers a pleasure again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a load of shit.
Yeah, you are the first person on slashdot to diss Apple.
Look Microsoft, go fuck of to neowin, we don't need your kind of bullshit here.I have owned lots of latops, have 2 brand new ones from work, a hp and a dell.
Not the cheapest of the lot, not the most expensive.
I would put my mac up against those machines, any day and do.
They often dont' sleep properly, and they take ONE minute to sleep when they do, whereas my mac sleeps in less than a second, wakes up in a second to.I pay extra for that, and a 1000 other things that Apple have done to make working with computers a pleasure again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959174</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257177480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yea.  but do you run linux?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yea .
but do you run linux ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yea.
but do you run linux?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958108</id>
	<title>Re:Wrong Answer Folks - Atom = 32bit CPU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257171660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that 10.6 runs on any intel Mac including the first MacBooks and Mac Minis and MacBook Pros and iMacs which weren't core 2 duo, which means they are not 64-bit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that 10.6 runs on any intel Mac including the first MacBooks and Mac Minis and MacBook Pros and iMacs which were n't core 2 duo , which means they are not 64-bit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that 10.6 runs on any intel Mac including the first MacBooks and Mac Minis and MacBook Pros and iMacs which weren't core 2 duo, which means they are not 64-bit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961886</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>blackchiney</author>
	<datestamp>1257251340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>To know that you would have to have access to their source code and developers. I had a hackintosh running on a Pentium D that doesn't work in 10.5 or 10.6 but it worked in 10.4. Something changed in the kernel, my PC wasn't supported, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that Apple sabotaged Pentium D owners.</htmltext>
<tokenext>To know that you would have to have access to their source code and developers .
I had a hackintosh running on a Pentium D that does n't work in 10.5 or 10.6 but it worked in 10.4 .
Something changed in the kernel , my PC was n't supported , but I would n't go so far as saying that Apple sabotaged Pentium D owners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To know that you would have to have access to their source code and developers.
I had a hackintosh running on a Pentium D that doesn't work in 10.5 or 10.6 but it worked in 10.4.
Something changed in the kernel, my PC wasn't supported, but I wouldn't go so far as saying that Apple sabotaged Pentium D owners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29966222</id>
	<title>Apple is a hardware company.</title>
	<author>neo</author>
	<datestamp>1257276120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple does not make software unless that software drives hardware in some way.  Apple has always been a hardware company, that is how they make their money.  The software is there to entice you to an experience on their hardware.</p><p>You will never see Apple sell just their software because that would ruin their market.  It would also cripple their support system which relies heavily on standardized hardware to streamline technical issues.  Customer support is easier on Apple products precisely because they know their hardware inside and out.</p><p>Get this point through your heads people... Apple will never shoot themselves in the foot and stop linking their software directly to their hardware.  The hardware IS the Macintosh.  The software drives the hardware but will never, ever get uncoupled from it (again).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple does not make software unless that software drives hardware in some way .
Apple has always been a hardware company , that is how they make their money .
The software is there to entice you to an experience on their hardware.You will never see Apple sell just their software because that would ruin their market .
It would also cripple their support system which relies heavily on standardized hardware to streamline technical issues .
Customer support is easier on Apple products precisely because they know their hardware inside and out.Get this point through your heads people... Apple will never shoot themselves in the foot and stop linking their software directly to their hardware .
The hardware IS the Macintosh .
The software drives the hardware but will never , ever get uncoupled from it ( again ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple does not make software unless that software drives hardware in some way.
Apple has always been a hardware company, that is how they make their money.
The software is there to entice you to an experience on their hardware.You will never see Apple sell just their software because that would ruin their market.
It would also cripple their support system which relies heavily on standardized hardware to streamline technical issues.
Customer support is easier on Apple products precisely because they know their hardware inside and out.Get this point through your heads people... Apple will never shoot themselves in the foot and stop linking their software directly to their hardware.
The hardware IS the Macintosh.
The software drives the hardware but will never, ever get uncoupled from it (again).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958240</id>
	<title>How about this model?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257172320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about Apple give a non-transferable copy of OSX for use on a netbook when a customer buys a MacBook Pro or Mac Pro?  Require purchase from Apple for this, lock down the OS to the Apple ID, require activation, and then people will have a path to run an UNSUPPORTED copy of OSX on a netbook.  In lieu of support suggest extra vanilla netbooks that generally work (Atom + GMA950 or Atom + ION)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about Apple give a non-transferable copy of OSX for use on a netbook when a customer buys a MacBook Pro or Mac Pro ?
Require purchase from Apple for this , lock down the OS to the Apple ID , require activation , and then people will have a path to run an UNSUPPORTED copy of OSX on a netbook .
In lieu of support suggest extra vanilla netbooks that generally work ( Atom + GMA950 or Atom + ION )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about Apple give a non-transferable copy of OSX for use on a netbook when a customer buys a MacBook Pro or Mac Pro?
Require purchase from Apple for this, lock down the OS to the Apple ID, require activation, and then people will have a path to run an UNSUPPORTED copy of OSX on a netbook.
In lieu of support suggest extra vanilla netbooks that generally work (Atom + GMA950 or Atom + ION)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959790</id>
	<title>Re:Why continue to reward a company that does this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257183120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This was true back when most Mac hardware such as cdrom drives or hard drives required tags in firmware for the computer to recognize it, even though there was nothing otherwise different about the unit whatsoever.</p></div><p>This has never been the case. Early versions of Apple's drive formatting software would only format Apple branded drives, but this is because a drive-specific driver would be loaded onto the drive, and Apple couldn't ensure compatibility with other drives.</p><p>You could always format the drive with a 3rd party utility, which the drives usually shipped with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was true back when most Mac hardware such as cdrom drives or hard drives required tags in firmware for the computer to recognize it , even though there was nothing otherwise different about the unit whatsoever.This has never been the case .
Early versions of Apple 's drive formatting software would only format Apple branded drives , but this is because a drive-specific driver would be loaded onto the drive , and Apple could n't ensure compatibility with other drives.You could always format the drive with a 3rd party utility , which the drives usually shipped with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was true back when most Mac hardware such as cdrom drives or hard drives required tags in firmware for the computer to recognize it, even though there was nothing otherwise different about the unit whatsoever.This has never been the case.
Early versions of Apple's drive formatting software would only format Apple branded drives, but this is because a drive-specific driver would be loaded onto the drive, and Apple couldn't ensure compatibility with other drives.You could always format the drive with a 3rd party utility, which the drives usually shipped with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959308</id>
	<title>It's their brand</title>
	<author>el\_tedward</author>
	<datestamp>1257178620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's really just an effort (a rather lazy one?) on their part to protect the image of their brand. They have a limited number of drivers they work with, so it makes it easier for them to create a better working more stable product.I'm not arguing that this is the right thing for them to do at all. I'd think it'd be great if anyone who wants to run OSX on their PC or netbook could do so without running into crap like this.

Microsoft, on the other hand, works to make their software assimilate every piece of hardware, so they aren't able to polish their drivers quite as much, even with their billions and billions of dollars.

Linux gets the shit end of this stick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's really just an effort ( a rather lazy one ?
) on their part to protect the image of their brand .
They have a limited number of drivers they work with , so it makes it easier for them to create a better working more stable product.I 'm not arguing that this is the right thing for them to do at all .
I 'd think it 'd be great if anyone who wants to run OSX on their PC or netbook could do so without running into crap like this .
Microsoft , on the other hand , works to make their software assimilate every piece of hardware , so they are n't able to polish their drivers quite as much , even with their billions and billions of dollars .
Linux gets the shit end of this stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's really just an effort (a rather lazy one?
) on their part to protect the image of their brand.
They have a limited number of drivers they work with, so it makes it easier for them to create a better working more stable product.I'm not arguing that this is the right thing for them to do at all.
I'd think it'd be great if anyone who wants to run OSX on their PC or netbook could do so without running into crap like this.
Microsoft, on the other hand, works to make their software assimilate every piece of hardware, so they aren't able to polish their drivers quite as much, even with their billions and billions of dollars.
Linux gets the shit end of this stick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>Ty</author>
	<datestamp>1257167700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS. While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share.  I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.</p><p>Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen.  He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple learned it 's lesson in the 90 's when it licensed MacOS .
While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share , it instead only whittled away at Apple 's own market share .
I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.Additionally , as long as Jobs is at the helm , this will never happen .
He 's made it very clear that Apple does n't sell hardware or software , but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple learned it's lesson in the 90's when it licensed MacOS.
While the hope was that the licensees would expand MacOS market share, it instead only whittled away at Apple's own market share.
I was an example myself - I have a PowerComputing system lying around somewhere - and it was a sale that would have gone to Apple were they not in existence.Additionally, as long as Jobs is at the helm, this will never happen.
He's made it very clear that Apple doesn't sell hardware or software, but rather the full experience provided by very good integration between the two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959722</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257182580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You problem wouldn't exist if you would have paid more for the Windows laptop too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You problem would n't exist if you would have paid more for the Windows laptop too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You problem wouldn't exist if you would have paid more for the Windows laptop too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967726</id>
	<title>Re:Raises a question?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257240720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It won't be long before a patched kernel will unblock them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It wo n't be long before a patched kernel will unblock them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It won't be long before a patched kernel will unblock them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960084</id>
	<title>Re:Netbooks</title>
	<author>RzUpAnmsCwrds</author>
	<datestamp>1257185340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have owned lots of latops, have 2 brand new ones from work, a hp and a dell. Not the cheapest of the lot, not the most expensive. I would put my mac up against those machines, any day and do. They often dont' sleep properly, and they take ONE minute to sleep when they do, whereas my mac sleeps in less than a second, wakes up in a second to.</p></div></blockquote><p>I own a $400 Acer 1410 laptop and two self-built desktops, one AMD and one Intel. I also recently sold a ThinkPad T61 and an Acer EEE PC 900HA.</p><p>ALL of them sleep and wake up in less than 3 seconds. My Acer wakes up in about a second (it has an Intel SSD that I installed); the others take a couple of seconds to spin up the hard drive.</p><p>The "Macs sleep and wake and PCs don't" argument is total bullshit. Find me one machine that's sold in Best Buy that doesn't sleep and wake properly.</p><p>I have owned a TON of hardware over the last 5 years, including the following:<br>- Acer EEE PC 900HA<br>- HP Compaq 6910p<br>- ThinkPad T61<br>- MSI Wind Nettop 100<br>- Custom-built AMD dekstop (GeForce 6100 chipset, Gigabyte motherboard)<br>- Custom-built Intel desktop (Intel G31 chipset, Gigabyte motherboard)<br>- Acer Aspire 1410<br>- Toshiba Portege M200 tablet PC<br>- Compal EFL30 generic notebook</p><p>All of this hardware properly sleeps and wakes properly.</p><p>My Acer 1410 was $400. It's 3lbs, has an 11.6" 1366x768 display, 4GB of memory, runs for 6-8 hours on a charge, has an HDMI port (including audio support), and a full size keyboard.</p><p>My Acer is made of plastic. It doesn't have a unibody case. It doesn't have a glowing Apple logo. It doesn't run Mac OS X.</p><p>But, you know what? I would take it over any Mac at any price (assuming that I couldn't sell the Mac). I have a desktop when I need computing power. My laptop needs to be light, small, have a usable keyboard and screen, and get good battery life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have owned lots of latops , have 2 brand new ones from work , a hp and a dell .
Not the cheapest of the lot , not the most expensive .
I would put my mac up against those machines , any day and do .
They often dont ' sleep properly , and they take ONE minute to sleep when they do , whereas my mac sleeps in less than a second , wakes up in a second to.I own a $ 400 Acer 1410 laptop and two self-built desktops , one AMD and one Intel .
I also recently sold a ThinkPad T61 and an Acer EEE PC 900HA.ALL of them sleep and wake up in less than 3 seconds .
My Acer wakes up in about a second ( it has an Intel SSD that I installed ) ; the others take a couple of seconds to spin up the hard drive.The " Macs sleep and wake and PCs do n't " argument is total bullshit .
Find me one machine that 's sold in Best Buy that does n't sleep and wake properly.I have owned a TON of hardware over the last 5 years , including the following : - Acer EEE PC 900HA- HP Compaq 6910p- ThinkPad T61- MSI Wind Nettop 100- Custom-built AMD dekstop ( GeForce 6100 chipset , Gigabyte motherboard ) - Custom-built Intel desktop ( Intel G31 chipset , Gigabyte motherboard ) - Acer Aspire 1410- Toshiba Portege M200 tablet PC- Compal EFL30 generic notebookAll of this hardware properly sleeps and wakes properly.My Acer 1410 was $ 400 .
It 's 3lbs , has an 11.6 " 1366x768 display , 4GB of memory , runs for 6-8 hours on a charge , has an HDMI port ( including audio support ) , and a full size keyboard.My Acer is made of plastic .
It does n't have a unibody case .
It does n't have a glowing Apple logo .
It does n't run Mac OS X.But , you know what ?
I would take it over any Mac at any price ( assuming that I could n't sell the Mac ) .
I have a desktop when I need computing power .
My laptop needs to be light , small , have a usable keyboard and screen , and get good battery life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have owned lots of latops, have 2 brand new ones from work, a hp and a dell.
Not the cheapest of the lot, not the most expensive.
I would put my mac up against those machines, any day and do.
They often dont' sleep properly, and they take ONE minute to sleep when they do, whereas my mac sleeps in less than a second, wakes up in a second to.I own a $400 Acer 1410 laptop and two self-built desktops, one AMD and one Intel.
I also recently sold a ThinkPad T61 and an Acer EEE PC 900HA.ALL of them sleep and wake up in less than 3 seconds.
My Acer wakes up in about a second (it has an Intel SSD that I installed); the others take a couple of seconds to spin up the hard drive.The "Macs sleep and wake and PCs don't" argument is total bullshit.
Find me one machine that's sold in Best Buy that doesn't sleep and wake properly.I have owned a TON of hardware over the last 5 years, including the following:- Acer EEE PC 900HA- HP Compaq 6910p- ThinkPad T61- MSI Wind Nettop 100- Custom-built AMD dekstop (GeForce 6100 chipset, Gigabyte motherboard)- Custom-built Intel desktop (Intel G31 chipset, Gigabyte motherboard)- Acer Aspire 1410- Toshiba Portege M200 tablet PC- Compal EFL30 generic notebookAll of this hardware properly sleeps and wakes properly.My Acer 1410 was $400.
It's 3lbs, has an 11.6" 1366x768 display, 4GB of memory, runs for 6-8 hours on a charge, has an HDMI port (including audio support), and a full size keyboard.My Acer is made of plastic.
It doesn't have a unibody case.
It doesn't have a glowing Apple logo.
It doesn't run Mac OS X.But, you know what?
I would take it over any Mac at any price (assuming that I couldn't sell the Mac).
I have a desktop when I need computing power.
My laptop needs to be light, small, have a usable keyboard and screen, and get good battery life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958662</id>
	<title>Still two things missing...</title>
	<author>Hamsterdan</author>
	<datestamp>1257174480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great! now if I want something portable, it has to be a 1000$ machine. It gets worse if you want a desktop system. It's either an all-in-one type (mini and iMac) or a full-blown workstation . Their current lineup is missing a small netbook-type machine and a small tower (between iMac and MAC PRO).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great !
now if I want something portable , it has to be a 1000 $ machine .
It gets worse if you want a desktop system .
It 's either an all-in-one type ( mini and iMac ) or a full-blown workstation .
Their current lineup is missing a small netbook-type machine and a small tower ( between iMac and MAC PRO ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great!
now if I want something portable, it has to be a 1000$ machine.
It gets worse if you want a desktop system.
It's either an all-in-one type (mini and iMac) or a full-blown workstation .
Their current lineup is missing a small netbook-type machine and a small tower (between iMac and MAC PRO).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967318
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957288
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29965750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959936
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957776
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29970514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29996916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958476
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29972648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957892
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29965728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958456
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960434
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962858
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960946
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29975432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958698
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957598
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958178
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29983200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957290
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967124
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_03_003243_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958822
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960202
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958256
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29965728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960644
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29968698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29996916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958476
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29970514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29965750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960434
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959790
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959458
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957316
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960842
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29975432
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957308
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959154
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957830
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959342
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959992
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959722
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957288
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957598
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958224
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29972648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961492
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967318
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959936
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957808
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957270
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29964538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958698
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958178
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29961960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958334
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29963602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959786
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29967124
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960950
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29983200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957290
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29962222
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957382
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957282
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960840
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29957250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29959830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29960196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958336
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_03_003243.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_03_003243.29958062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
