<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_19_1359253</id>
	<title>Microsoft Aims To Close Performance Gap With Internet Explorer 9</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1258642980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Barence writes <i>"Microsoft has unveiled the <a href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/353425/internet-explorer-9-to-close-performance-gap">first details of Internet Explorer 9</a>, promising that it will close the performance gap on rival browsers. The major newcomer is a revamped rendering engine that will tap the power of the PC's graphics card to accelerate text and graphics performance. 'We're <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/11/18/an-early-look-at-ie9-for-developers.aspx">changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs</a> to enable many advances for web developers,' explains Internet Explorer's general manager, Dean Hachamovitch. As well as improving performance, Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Barence writes " Microsoft has unveiled the first details of Internet Explorer 9 , promising that it will close the performance gap on rival browsers .
The major newcomer is a revamped rendering engine that will tap the power of the PC 's graphics card to accelerate text and graphics performance .
'We 're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for web developers, ' explains Internet Explorer 's general manager , Dean Hachamovitch .
As well as improving performance , Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web , with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Barence writes "Microsoft has unveiled the first details of Internet Explorer 9, promising that it will close the performance gap on rival browsers.
The major newcomer is a revamped rendering engine that will tap the power of the PC's graphics card to accelerate text and graphics performance.
'We're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for web developers,' explains Internet Explorer's general manager, Dean Hachamovitch.
As well as improving performance, Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158452</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258652760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if web standards came along later, it still wouldn't be a good reason to ignore them.  The standard electrical outlet was designed after someone discovered how to harness electricity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them.
</p><p>Standards are good.  If someone wants to argue that IE's version of HTML is better than W3C's and we should be using it as our standard instead, I'm all ears.  Of course, for that to be a reasonable idea, we'd have to have a well documented explanation of what IE's "standard" is and how it works, because otherwise it's not much of a standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if web standards came along later , it still would n't be a good reason to ignore them .
The standard electrical outlet was designed after someone discovered how to harness electricity , but that does n't mean we should n't use them .
Standards are good .
If someone wants to argue that IE 's version of HTML is better than W3C 's and we should be using it as our standard instead , I 'm all ears .
Of course , for that to be a reasonable idea , we 'd have to have a well documented explanation of what IE 's " standard " is and how it works , because otherwise it 's not much of a standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if web standards came along later, it still wouldn't be a good reason to ignore them.
The standard electrical outlet was designed after someone discovered how to harness electricity, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them.
Standards are good.
If someone wants to argue that IE's version of HTML is better than W3C's and we should be using it as our standard instead, I'm all ears.
Of course, for that to be a reasonable idea, we'd have to have a well documented explanation of what IE's "standard" is and how it works, because otherwise it's not much of a standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160566</id>
	<title>Re:Let it go! IE is expensive .... for webdevelope</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258659180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the end-users dont give a shit what hardships you have to go through as a web developers (and to be honest, Firefox, Safari and Opera users dont give a shit about your troubles either), then why the hell should Microsoft?<br>
<br>
Make yer shit work. Thats what you are paid to do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the end-users dont give a shit what hardships you have to go through as a web developers ( and to be honest , Firefox , Safari and Opera users dont give a shit about your troubles either ) , then why the hell should Microsoft ?
Make yer shit work .
Thats what you are paid to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the end-users dont give a shit what hardships you have to go through as a web developers (and to be honest, Firefox, Safari and Opera users dont give a shit about your troubles either), then why the hell should Microsoft?
Make yer shit work.
Thats what you are paid to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157280</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159768</id>
	<title>Re:DirectX it is then?</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1258656840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe you've missed out Winforms, Silverlight and WTL. I think there's more but just can't remember them. You're not the only one to have this issue, look at what <a href="http://minimsft.blogspot.com/2009/10/windows-7-and-grab-bag-of-microsoftness.html" title="blogspot.com">MiniMicrosoft (who is a senior MS guy) says</a> [blogspot.com]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Dev Div: If I had to sit down tomorrow and write a casual application for the PC, my mind would fork itself in about five different directions. Native with ATL? WPF? Silverlight? An HTA? And what's up with XNA? If I want to write an app for the Zune (which Zune?) what do I do? And can it run on some future mobile device? And the PC? And Xbox?</p><p>And how do I share it? How do I sell it? And, ah, crap, you mean you just released a whole new version of C# / Silverlight / XNA that I have to go and relearn? Maybe those free Starbucks coffee dispensers wasn't a good idea...</p><p>If anything, I'd probably be pretty damn tempted to invest time learning Adobe AIR. And I'm thinking that while smack dab in the middle of the Microsoft bubble. There are a lot of Partners in Dev Div, and I'm not seeing any benefit from their concentration. The Windows client should be the premiere development platform. It's not. What am I missing?</p></div><p>Lets just be thankful you didn't want to talk about database access technologies!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe you 've missed out Winforms , Silverlight and WTL .
I think there 's more but just ca n't remember them .
You 're not the only one to have this issue , look at what MiniMicrosoft ( who is a senior MS guy ) says [ blogspot.com ] : Dev Div : If I had to sit down tomorrow and write a casual application for the PC , my mind would fork itself in about five different directions .
Native with ATL ?
WPF ? Silverlight ?
An HTA ?
And what 's up with XNA ?
If I want to write an app for the Zune ( which Zune ?
) what do I do ?
And can it run on some future mobile device ?
And the PC ?
And Xbox ? And how do I share it ?
How do I sell it ?
And , ah , crap , you mean you just released a whole new version of C # / Silverlight / XNA that I have to go and relearn ?
Maybe those free Starbucks coffee dispensers was n't a good idea...If anything , I 'd probably be pretty damn tempted to invest time learning Adobe AIR .
And I 'm thinking that while smack dab in the middle of the Microsoft bubble .
There are a lot of Partners in Dev Div , and I 'm not seeing any benefit from their concentration .
The Windows client should be the premiere development platform .
It 's not .
What am I missing ? Lets just be thankful you did n't want to talk about database access technologies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe you've missed out Winforms, Silverlight and WTL.
I think there's more but just can't remember them.
You're not the only one to have this issue, look at what MiniMicrosoft (who is a senior MS guy) says [blogspot.com]:Dev Div: If I had to sit down tomorrow and write a casual application for the PC, my mind would fork itself in about five different directions.
Native with ATL?
WPF? Silverlight?
An HTA?
And what's up with XNA?
If I want to write an app for the Zune (which Zune?
) what do I do?
And can it run on some future mobile device?
And the PC?
And Xbox?And how do I share it?
How do I sell it?
And, ah, crap, you mean you just released a whole new version of C# / Silverlight / XNA that I have to go and relearn?
Maybe those free Starbucks coffee dispensers wasn't a good idea...If anything, I'd probably be pretty damn tempted to invest time learning Adobe AIR.
And I'm thinking that while smack dab in the middle of the Microsoft bubble.
There are a lot of Partners in Dev Div, and I'm not seeing any benefit from their concentration.
The Windows client should be the premiere development platform.
It's not.
What am I missing?Lets just be thankful you didn't want to talk about database access technologies!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30170002</id>
	<title>3 weeks?</title>
	<author>(pvb)charon</author>
	<datestamp>1258724820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>According to a video from PDC, Microsoft engineers have just spent three weeks with developing IE9 and have already boosted speed, compatibility and rendering quality immensely compared to IE7 and 8.<br>So... Why didn't they spend those three weeks before actually launching IE7 and 8?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>According to a video from PDC , Microsoft engineers have just spent three weeks with developing IE9 and have already boosted speed , compatibility and rendering quality immensely compared to IE7 and 8.So... Why did n't they spend those three weeks before actually launching IE7 and 8 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to a video from PDC, Microsoft engineers have just spent three weeks with developing IE9 and have already boosted speed, compatibility and rendering quality immensely compared to IE7 and 8.So... Why didn't they spend those three weeks before actually launching IE7 and 8?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744</id>
	<title>Awesome!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258647720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now it will incorrectly render my pages twice as fast!</p><p>Seriously, IE has become a verb with me and my web developer friends. We even use it in general conversation: <em>"That guy cut me off and I told him to go IE himself."</em></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now it will incorrectly render my pages twice as fast ! Seriously , IE has become a verb with me and my web developer friends .
We even use it in general conversation : " That guy cut me off and I told him to go IE himself .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now it will incorrectly render my pages twice as fast!Seriously, IE has become a verb with me and my web developer friends.
We even use it in general conversation: "That guy cut me off and I told him to go IE himself.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30164458</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258628340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ACID3 tests a pretty small random subset and boils it down to a single number, that's exactly what a benchmark is. If you want to test standards compliance in a meaningful way then do it by looking at the actual compliance to various standards*, don't just parrot the acid3 number and pretend it's anything more than a benchmarks. ACID is a good benchmark, but that is all it is, the fact people treat it like a target is the problem!</p><p>*Even that isn't entirely fair because some functions are worth more, a fail on CSS3 is worth less than a fail on CSS2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ACID3 tests a pretty small random subset and boils it down to a single number , that 's exactly what a benchmark is .
If you want to test standards compliance in a meaningful way then do it by looking at the actual compliance to various standards * , do n't just parrot the acid3 number and pretend it 's anything more than a benchmarks .
ACID is a good benchmark , but that is all it is , the fact people treat it like a target is the problem !
* Even that is n't entirely fair because some functions are worth more , a fail on CSS3 is worth less than a fail on CSS2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACID3 tests a pretty small random subset and boils it down to a single number, that's exactly what a benchmark is.
If you want to test standards compliance in a meaningful way then do it by looking at the actual compliance to various standards*, don't just parrot the acid3 number and pretend it's anything more than a benchmarks.
ACID is a good benchmark, but that is all it is, the fact people treat it like a target is the problem!
*Even that isn't entirely fair because some functions are worth more, a fail on CSS3 is worth less than a fail on CSS2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30166084</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an abbreviated history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258635060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>once they owned the browser market, they did nothing to improve it.</p></div><p>That's not entirely true. They created a few new technologies to support other products that they had. For instance, they created the XMLHttpRequest concept to enable the web version of Outlook. They didn't submit it to standards bodies or document/publicize it very much, but they created it and when it finally got noticed, it sparked the AJAX fad.</p><p>You can say they did little to improve it, but saying nothing is a bit of an exaggeration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>once they owned the browser market , they did nothing to improve it.That 's not entirely true .
They created a few new technologies to support other products that they had .
For instance , they created the XMLHttpRequest concept to enable the web version of Outlook .
They did n't submit it to standards bodies or document/publicize it very much , but they created it and when it finally got noticed , it sparked the AJAX fad.You can say they did little to improve it , but saying nothing is a bit of an exaggeration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>once they owned the browser market, they did nothing to improve it.That's not entirely true.
They created a few new technologies to support other products that they had.
For instance, they created the XMLHttpRequest concept to enable the web version of Outlook.
They didn't submit it to standards bodies or document/publicize it very much, but they created it and when it finally got noticed, it sparked the AJAX fad.You can say they did little to improve it, but saying nothing is a bit of an exaggeration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156768</id>
	<title>More Exploits</title>
	<author>TheNinjaroach</author>
	<datestamp>1258647780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>More surface area for exploits, yeah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>More surface area for exploits , yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More surface area for exploits, yeah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158886</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because ACID is not a benchmark per se. It's simply a compliance test.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because ACID is not a benchmark per se .
It 's simply a compliance test .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because ACID is not a benchmark per se.
It's simply a compliance test.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160494</id>
	<title>Doesn't matter</title>
	<author>implowry</author>
	<datestamp>1258659000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It doesn't matter if IE9 is able to warp time so the page loads before you finish typing the url and speed up your computer so you could break any encryption scheme. The fact is that large corporations and bureaucracies are not going to upgrade past IE6 until civilization is wiped out. IE9 won't be upgraded to just like IE7 and IE8 haven't been upgraded to and web developers will have to keep building (or at least hacking to get modest functionality) for the lowest common denominator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if IE9 is able to warp time so the page loads before you finish typing the url and speed up your computer so you could break any encryption scheme .
The fact is that large corporations and bureaucracies are not going to upgrade past IE6 until civilization is wiped out .
IE9 wo n't be upgraded to just like IE7 and IE8 have n't been upgraded to and web developers will have to keep building ( or at least hacking to get modest functionality ) for the lowest common denominator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if IE9 is able to warp time so the page loads before you finish typing the url and speed up your computer so you could break any encryption scheme.
The fact is that large corporations and bureaucracies are not going to upgrade past IE6 until civilization is wiped out.
IE9 won't be upgraded to just like IE7 and IE8 haven't been upgraded to and web developers will have to keep building (or at least hacking to get modest functionality) for the lowest common denominator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157392</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome!</title>
	<author>Jeff Carr</author>
	<datestamp>1258649580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly.  I, and I'm sure many others, spent countless hours studying web technologies in the late 90's.  I was starting to become quite an expert in typography, accessibility, interface design, and the myriad of technologies necessary to create complete web applications.  Then I started trying to develop standards based web pages that worked in IE.<br> <br>
So, now I'm a database developer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
I , and I 'm sure many others , spent countless hours studying web technologies in the late 90 's .
I was starting to become quite an expert in typography , accessibility , interface design , and the myriad of technologies necessary to create complete web applications .
Then I started trying to develop standards based web pages that worked in IE .
So , now I 'm a database developer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
I, and I'm sure many others, spent countless hours studying web technologies in the late 90's.
I was starting to become quite an expert in typography, accessibility, interface design, and the myriad of technologies necessary to create complete web applications.
Then I started trying to develop standards based web pages that worked in IE.
So, now I'm a database developer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160480</id>
	<title>Silverlight? Really?</title>
	<author>c4t3y3</author>
	<datestamp>1258658940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I tried to get the word on open standards from MS itself<br>
<a href="http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-Standards-and-Interoperability/" title="msdn.com" rel="nofollow">http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-Standards-and-Interoperability/</a> [msdn.com]
<br>but they wanted me to install some "Silverlight" MS thingy and I gave up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to get the word on open standards from MS itself http : //channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-Standards-and-Interoperability/ [ msdn.com ] but they wanted me to install some " Silverlight " MS thingy and I gave up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to get the word on open standards from MS itself
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-Standards-and-Interoperability/ [msdn.com]
but they wanted me to install some "Silverlight" MS thingy and I gave up.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157922</id>
	<title>Please, Microsoft</title>
	<author>Trailer Trash</author>
	<datestamp>1258651140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a developer of web-based applications, I beg you to quit making new browsers.  I am right now dealing with three of your browsers - one a complete nightmare and the others merely "bad".  It's really obvious to even the casual observer that your company does not have the capability to make a decent web browser.  You'll always be playing a really bad game of catch-up.  You'll never be as good as Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Chrome.  I can get *all* of those at no charge, same price as yours.  But - and this is key here - those browsers work.</p><p>I have begun showing my customers just how much money they're paying to make their applications work with IE after I write them.  People are getting pissed, and rightly so.  You're putting money in my pocket, but frankly I have better, much more fun ways to make money.</p><p>Just.  Give.  It.  Up.  For the sake of all of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a developer of web-based applications , I beg you to quit making new browsers .
I am right now dealing with three of your browsers - one a complete nightmare and the others merely " bad " .
It 's really obvious to even the casual observer that your company does not have the capability to make a decent web browser .
You 'll always be playing a really bad game of catch-up .
You 'll never be as good as Safari , Firefox , Opera , or Chrome .
I can get * all * of those at no charge , same price as yours .
But - and this is key here - those browsers work.I have begun showing my customers just how much money they 're paying to make their applications work with IE after I write them .
People are getting pissed , and rightly so .
You 're putting money in my pocket , but frankly I have better , much more fun ways to make money.Just .
Give. It .
Up. For the sake of all of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a developer of web-based applications, I beg you to quit making new browsers.
I am right now dealing with three of your browsers - one a complete nightmare and the others merely "bad".
It's really obvious to even the casual observer that your company does not have the capability to make a decent web browser.
You'll always be playing a really bad game of catch-up.
You'll never be as good as Safari, Firefox, Opera, or Chrome.
I can get *all* of those at no charge, same price as yours.
But - and this is key here - those browsers work.I have begun showing my customers just how much money they're paying to make their applications work with IE after I write them.
People are getting pissed, and rightly so.
You're putting money in my pocket, but frankly I have better, much more fun ways to make money.Just.
Give.  It.
Up.  For the sake of all of us.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30174380</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>IntlHarvester</author>
	<datestamp>1258745100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;  If someone wants to argue that IE's version of HTML is better than W3C's</p><p>The proposed HTML5 spec does contain some minor "IEisms", so they are apparently doing just that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; If someone wants to argue that IE 's version of HTML is better than W3C'sThe proposed HTML5 spec does contain some minor " IEisms " , so they are apparently doing just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;  If someone wants to argue that IE's version of HTML is better than W3C'sThe proposed HTML5 spec does contain some minor "IEisms", so they are apparently doing just that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158452</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156456</id>
	<title>Sub Pixel rendering, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258646760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces</p></div><p> Anyone else get the feeling Dean hasn't really been keeping up with recent developments?  If that's IE's general manager, it explains much.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web , with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces Anyone else get the feeling Dean has n't really been keeping up with recent developments ?
If that 's IE 's general manager , it explains much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces Anyone else get the feeling Dean hasn't really been keeping up with recent developments?
If that's IE's general manager, it explains much.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157438</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>99BottlesOfBeerInMyF</author>
	<datestamp>1258649760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about built in, in line spell check...</p></div><p>I agree this is important, but I disagree that it should be added to the browser. That's an unnecessary duplication of functionality. Spell checking is just the type of service that is going to be used by many applications on an OS and where you generally want any customizations you make to be universal across applications. Spellchecking should be implemented at the OS level in both Windows and Linux and the OS should supply it as a service to applications. Ideally, the same should be done for dictionary/thesaurus lookup, grammar checking, and language translation to name a few. </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity.</p></div><p>I wouldn't go that far, but it does seem like this should have been a solved problem a decade ago (and probably would have been if we had competition in the desktop OS market). Spellchecking is important in a browser, and an e-mail client, and a text editor and a word processor. It is nice in your chat client and graphic editor and many other applications. It's interesting that you say lack of spelling checker is a major stumbling block keeping you away from IE. Lack of text manipulation services including universal spell checking is one of the things keeping me away from Linux and Windows and using OS X when I have a choice for an application that will run on any OS I want. The fact that Firefox still can't use the default spellchecker or other services when running on OS X is one of the things that keeps it from being my everyday browser. Who wants to train their spelling checker to recognize hundreds of technical terms like "MPLS" or "big-endian" and then have to go through and retrain it for every word for one nonstandard application that also can't do grammar checking or dictionary lookups or bibliography auto-formatting either?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about built in , in line spell check...I agree this is important , but I disagree that it should be added to the browser .
That 's an unnecessary duplication of functionality .
Spell checking is just the type of service that is going to be used by many applications on an OS and where you generally want any customizations you make to be universal across applications .
Spellchecking should be implemented at the OS level in both Windows and Linux and the OS should supply it as a service to applications .
Ideally , the same should be done for dictionary/thesaurus lookup , grammar checking , and language translation to name a few .
Spell check is not a luxury , its a necessity.I would n't go that far , but it does seem like this should have been a solved problem a decade ago ( and probably would have been if we had competition in the desktop OS market ) .
Spellchecking is important in a browser , and an e-mail client , and a text editor and a word processor .
It is nice in your chat client and graphic editor and many other applications .
It 's interesting that you say lack of spelling checker is a major stumbling block keeping you away from IE .
Lack of text manipulation services including universal spell checking is one of the things keeping me away from Linux and Windows and using OS X when I have a choice for an application that will run on any OS I want .
The fact that Firefox still ca n't use the default spellchecker or other services when running on OS X is one of the things that keeps it from being my everyday browser .
Who wants to train their spelling checker to recognize hundreds of technical terms like " MPLS " or " big-endian " and then have to go through and retrain it for every word for one nonstandard application that also ca n't do grammar checking or dictionary lookups or bibliography auto-formatting either ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about built in, in line spell check...I agree this is important, but I disagree that it should be added to the browser.
That's an unnecessary duplication of functionality.
Spell checking is just the type of service that is going to be used by many applications on an OS and where you generally want any customizations you make to be universal across applications.
Spellchecking should be implemented at the OS level in both Windows and Linux and the OS should supply it as a service to applications.
Ideally, the same should be done for dictionary/thesaurus lookup, grammar checking, and language translation to name a few.
Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity.I wouldn't go that far, but it does seem like this should have been a solved problem a decade ago (and probably would have been if we had competition in the desktop OS market).
Spellchecking is important in a browser, and an e-mail client, and a text editor and a word processor.
It is nice in your chat client and graphic editor and many other applications.
It's interesting that you say lack of spelling checker is a major stumbling block keeping you away from IE.
Lack of text manipulation services including universal spell checking is one of the things keeping me away from Linux and Windows and using OS X when I have a choice for an application that will run on any OS I want.
The fact that Firefox still can't use the default spellchecker or other services when running on OS X is one of the things that keeps it from being my everyday browser.
Who wants to train their spelling checker to recognize hundreds of technical terms like "MPLS" or "big-endian" and then have to go through and retrain it for every word for one nonstandard application that also can't do grammar checking or dictionary lookups or bibliography auto-formatting either?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157424</id>
	<title>DirectX for subpel rendering?!</title>
	<author>yk4ever</author>
	<datestamp>1258649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Subpixel positioning is something NEW?! ClearType has been supported in Windows for ages, man. And it was even turned on by default in IE7 engine (even if the rest of the system didn't have it on).</p><p>All this "improved graphics" stuff sounds like DirectBullshit to me. Well, at least they have tranparent PNGs now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Subpixel positioning is something NEW ? !
ClearType has been supported in Windows for ages , man .
And it was even turned on by default in IE7 engine ( even if the rest of the system did n't have it on ) .All this " improved graphics " stuff sounds like DirectBullshit to me .
Well , at least they have tranparent PNGs now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Subpixel positioning is something NEW?!
ClearType has been supported in Windows for ages, man.
And it was even turned on by default in IE7 engine (even if the rest of the system didn't have it on).All this "improved graphics" stuff sounds like DirectBullshit to me.
Well, at least they have tranparent PNGs now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156788</id>
	<title>Quote correction</title>
	<author>killmenow</author>
	<datestamp>1258647840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> 'We're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for <b>Windows-only</b> web developers,' explains Internet Explorer's general manager, Dean Hachamovitch.</i> </p><p>Welcome to the new IE. Same as the old IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'We 're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for Windows-only web developers, ' explains Internet Explorer 's general manager , Dean Hachamovitch .
Welcome to the new IE .
Same as the old IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 'We're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for Windows-only web developers,' explains Internet Explorer's general manager, Dean Hachamovitch.
Welcome to the new IE.
Same as the old IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159978</id>
	<title>Screw the performance, DirectX API implemented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258657380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they are truly implementing the DirectX API as they are claiming does this mean maybe someday an update to RDP so that we can view (correctly) DirectX applications across it?</p><p>What possibilities does this enable if anything?  Will this only allow local calls to the API?  So many questions!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they are truly implementing the DirectX API as they are claiming does this mean maybe someday an update to RDP so that we can view ( correctly ) DirectX applications across it ? What possibilities does this enable if anything ?
Will this only allow local calls to the API ?
So many questions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they are truly implementing the DirectX API as they are claiming does this mean maybe someday an update to RDP so that we can view (correctly) DirectX applications across it?What possibilities does this enable if anything?
Will this only allow local calls to the API?
So many questions!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157490</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1258649940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity.</p></div></blockquote><p>Sez you.  Spell check to me appears mostly a way of using the wrong word with confidence, because spell check told you that's the word you're supposed to be using.  Don't need it, don't want it.  Learn to spell instead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spell check is not a luxury , its a necessity.Sez you .
Spell check to me appears mostly a way of using the wrong word with confidence , because spell check told you that 's the word you 're supposed to be using .
Do n't need it , do n't want it .
Learn to spell instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity.Sez you.
Spell check to me appears mostly a way of using the wrong word with confidence, because spell check told you that's the word you're supposed to be using.
Don't need it, don't want it.
Learn to spell instead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158836</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258653900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's their last line of defense in groundless flames against Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's their last line of defense in groundless flames against Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's their last line of defense in groundless flames against Microsoft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159112</id>
	<title>Re:"will tap the power of the PC's graphics card..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it.</p></div><p>That's ok. Microsoft will drop enough features to make its performance passable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we 'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it.That 's ok. Microsoft will drop enough features to make its performance passable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it.That's ok. Microsoft will drop enough features to make its performance passable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158120</id>
	<title>The solution to performance problems in IE 9</title>
	<author>Storchei</author>
	<datestamp>1258651740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They've found that increasing the Minimum System Requirements to Quad-core processors with +10GB of RAM solves the performance problems. =P<br>
<br>
(Just for the record I'm not a FF fan)</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 've found that increasing the Minimum System Requirements to Quad-core processors with + 10GB of RAM solves the performance problems .
= P ( Just for the record I 'm not a FF fan )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They've found that increasing the Minimum System Requirements to Quad-core processors with +10GB of RAM solves the performance problems.
=P

(Just for the record I'm not a FF fan)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157368</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1258649520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Similar here, I've had 2 windows and a lot of tabs open, running all week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Similar here , I 've had 2 windows and a lot of tabs open , running all week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Similar here, I've had 2 windows and a lot of tabs open, running all week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159748</id>
	<title>Re:Awesome!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258656840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, they only promise faster run time performance. Speeding up development for IE would leave you with time to actually support other browsers. Management made it clear they weren't going to stand for that shit.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , they only promise faster run time performance .
Speeding up development for IE would leave you with time to actually support other browsers .
Management made it clear they were n't going to stand for that shit .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, they only promise faster run time performance.
Speeding up development for IE would leave you with time to actually support other browsers.
Management made it clear they weren't going to stand for that shit.
;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158628</id>
	<title>IE is also an injection</title>
	<author>shis-ka-bob</author>
	<datestamp>1258653240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>as in, "The web developer screamed 'IEEEEEEE!' as he lept to his death in frustration."  This is known as an injection attack and is becoming increasingly common.</htmltext>
<tokenext>as in , " The web developer screamed 'IEEEEEEE !
' as he lept to his death in frustration .
" This is known as an injection attack and is becoming increasingly common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as in, "The web developer screamed 'IEEEEEEE!
' as he lept to his death in frustration.
"  This is known as an injection attack and is becoming increasingly common.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156428</id>
	<title>IE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258646640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>will still suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will still suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will still suck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157158</id>
	<title>Almost InternetX already?</title>
	<author>thijsh</author>
	<datestamp>1258648920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As a web developer I hate to see a new IE despite the possibility of improvements... It will just mean more different incompatible IE versions to test and maintain code for us (IE6 will still have a marketshare when IE10 comes uit... although they will probably rebrand it to InternetX).<br>
Good thing there are JavaScript libraries like jQuery that fill some of the gaping holes in IE standards support and make it usable like a normal browser... the funny part is that when the IE javascript engine is finally on par with modern engines like V8 the real life speed will still be slower since IE is wasting a lot of time working around incompatibilities (which of course requires extra JavaScript calls to make it work)...</htmltext>
<tokenext>As a web developer I hate to see a new IE despite the possibility of improvements... It will just mean more different incompatible IE versions to test and maintain code for us ( IE6 will still have a marketshare when IE10 comes uit... although they will probably rebrand it to InternetX ) .
Good thing there are JavaScript libraries like jQuery that fill some of the gaping holes in IE standards support and make it usable like a normal browser... the funny part is that when the IE javascript engine is finally on par with modern engines like V8 the real life speed will still be slower since IE is wasting a lot of time working around incompatibilities ( which of course requires extra JavaScript calls to make it work ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a web developer I hate to see a new IE despite the possibility of improvements... It will just mean more different incompatible IE versions to test and maintain code for us (IE6 will still have a marketshare when IE10 comes uit... although they will probably rebrand it to InternetX).
Good thing there are JavaScript libraries like jQuery that fill some of the gaping holes in IE standards support and make it usable like a normal browser... the funny part is that when the IE javascript engine is finally on par with modern engines like V8 the real life speed will still be slower since IE is wasting a lot of time working around incompatibilities (which of course requires extra JavaScript calls to make it work)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156960</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>barzok</author>
	<datestamp>1258648380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most Firefox memory issues since 3.x are due to bad extensions, not the core browser. Firefox is doing well with memory nowadays. I've had 2 windows, one of which has anywhere from 2 to 20 tabs in it, running all week on XP SP3, and haven't noticed any slowdowns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most Firefox memory issues since 3.x are due to bad extensions , not the core browser .
Firefox is doing well with memory nowadays .
I 've had 2 windows , one of which has anywhere from 2 to 20 tabs in it , running all week on XP SP3 , and have n't noticed any slowdowns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most Firefox memory issues since 3.x are due to bad extensions, not the core browser.
Firefox is doing well with memory nowadays.
I've had 2 windows, one of which has anywhere from 2 to 20 tabs in it, running all week on XP SP3, and haven't noticed any slowdowns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157622</id>
	<title>Give-up and back Firefox</title>
	<author>ihunger</author>
	<datestamp>1258650240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Microsoft should just give up on the browser wars and back Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft should just give up on the browser wars and back Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft should just give up on the browser wars and back Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156836</id>
	<title>Fast shit is still shit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quote: "We're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for web developers"<br>Translation: "We're adding more ways to lock you in and exclude others from the stuff you build"</p><p>Article: "revamped rendering engine"<br>Translation: "Your old stuff will break again"</p><p>Quote: "the score will continue to go up" (after reaching only 32 of 100 points in ACID 3)<br>Translation: "we don't intend to go for the full 100"</p><p>I'm not impressed. Their aim should be 100 points in ACID3, a full implementation of CSS 2.1 and a list of CSS3 draft items they want to support. Also backing html5 would have been a good idea. Their communication doesn't go into that direction. "The score will go up" is rather weak. IE9 will still be the entry level of browser when it appears.</p><p>We don't need another broken IE.<br>Do it right or leave it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quote : " We 're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for web developers " Translation : " We 're adding more ways to lock you in and exclude others from the stuff you build " Article : " revamped rendering engine " Translation : " Your old stuff will break again " Quote : " the score will continue to go up " ( after reaching only 32 of 100 points in ACID 3 ) Translation : " we do n't intend to go for the full 100 " I 'm not impressed .
Their aim should be 100 points in ACID3 , a full implementation of CSS 2.1 and a list of CSS3 draft items they want to support .
Also backing html5 would have been a good idea .
Their communication does n't go into that direction .
" The score will go up " is rather weak .
IE9 will still be the entry level of browser when it appears.We do n't need another broken IE.Do it right or leave it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quote: "We're changing IE to use the DirectX family of Windows APIs to enable many advances for web developers"Translation: "We're adding more ways to lock you in and exclude others from the stuff you build"Article: "revamped rendering engine"Translation: "Your old stuff will break again"Quote: "the score will continue to go up" (after reaching only 32 of 100 points in ACID 3)Translation: "we don't intend to go for the full 100"I'm not impressed.
Their aim should be 100 points in ACID3, a full implementation of CSS 2.1 and a list of CSS3 draft items they want to support.
Also backing html5 would have been a good idea.
Their communication doesn't go into that direction.
"The score will go up" is rather weak.
IE9 will still be the entry level of browser when it appears.We don't need another broken IE.Do it right or leave it.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160728</id>
	<title>Re:Why do I get the visual</title>
	<author>manekineko2</author>
	<datestamp>1258659660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The thing I thought funniest about that commercial (here for those of you that don't know what we're talking about: <a href="http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken\_promises-us-20091022\_480x272.mov" title="apple.com">http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken\_promises-us-20091022\_480x272.mov</a> [apple.com]) is that as the Mac Guy goes back in time with the Windows Guy, no matter how far back you go he's still wearing hipster doofus skinny jeans.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The thing I thought funniest about that commercial ( here for those of you that do n't know what we 're talking about : http : //movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken \ _promises-us-20091022 \ _480x272.mov [ apple.com ] ) is that as the Mac Guy goes back in time with the Windows Guy , no matter how far back you go he 's still wearing hipster doofus skinny jeans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The thing I thought funniest about that commercial (here for those of you that don't know what we're talking about: http://movies.apple.com/media/us/mac/getamac/2009/apple-mvp-broken\_promises-us-20091022\_480x272.mov [apple.com]) is that as the Mac Guy goes back in time with the Windows Guy, no matter how far back you go he's still wearing hipster doofus skinny jeans.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158018</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1258651440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, MS was the latecomer to the party. There were points where standards were updated and MS had a majority market share, but since the web is supposed to be platform neutral and MS's browser is supposed to promote lock-in, it's not that surprising that the mis-matched goals would lead to mis-matched specs.</p><p>Another factor is that in some cases IE's behavior was (is) terribly inconsistent and actually provided no reliable way to do things that should be possible. That means that the spec cannot just ratify what IE does. To show just how screwed up IE was, back in the 3.0 days I knew of one webiste that would crash IE 100\% of the time. That site was <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/</a> [microsoft.com] That suggests that even MS didn't understand MSIE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , MS was the latecomer to the party .
There were points where standards were updated and MS had a majority market share , but since the web is supposed to be platform neutral and MS 's browser is supposed to promote lock-in , it 's not that surprising that the mis-matched goals would lead to mis-matched specs.Another factor is that in some cases IE 's behavior was ( is ) terribly inconsistent and actually provided no reliable way to do things that should be possible .
That means that the spec can not just ratify what IE does .
To show just how screwed up IE was , back in the 3.0 days I knew of one webiste that would crash IE 100 \ % of the time .
That site was http : //www.microsoft.com/ [ microsoft.com ] That suggests that even MS did n't understand MSIE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, MS was the latecomer to the party.
There were points where standards were updated and MS had a majority market share, but since the web is supposed to be platform neutral and MS's browser is supposed to promote lock-in, it's not that surprising that the mis-matched goals would lead to mis-matched specs.Another factor is that in some cases IE's behavior was (is) terribly inconsistent and actually provided no reliable way to do things that should be possible.
That means that the spec cannot just ratify what IE does.
To show just how screwed up IE was, back in the 3.0 days I knew of one webiste that would crash IE 100\% of the time.
That site was http://www.microsoft.com/ [microsoft.com] That suggests that even MS didn't understand MSIE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160212</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>rrohbeck</author>
	<datestamp>1258658100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just used IE8 for the first time on a brand new 2.3 GHz Core 2 Duo laptop with 8 GB that came preinstalled with XP64.<br>OMG. Browsing never felt slower. Anyway, waaay slower than on my ancient 2.0 GHz P4 with 1 GB and Ubuntu.<br>I thought I needed to familiarize myself with IE8 but it was just too painful so I had enough after about a half hour.<br>So, I'll have to say goodluckwiththat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just used IE8 for the first time on a brand new 2.3 GHz Core 2 Duo laptop with 8 GB that came preinstalled with XP64.OMG .
Browsing never felt slower .
Anyway , waaay slower than on my ancient 2.0 GHz P4 with 1 GB and Ubuntu.I thought I needed to familiarize myself with IE8 but it was just too painful so I had enough after about a half hour.So , I 'll have to say goodluckwiththat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just used IE8 for the first time on a brand new 2.3 GHz Core 2 Duo laptop with 8 GB that came preinstalled with XP64.OMG.
Browsing never felt slower.
Anyway, waaay slower than on my ancient 2.0 GHz P4 with 1 GB and Ubuntu.I thought I needed to familiarize myself with IE8 but it was just too painful so I had enough after about a half hour.So, I'll have to say goodluckwiththat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158932</id>
	<title>Sub-Pixels</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1258654200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no such thing as a sub-pixel.</p><p>If my text is of color X, then you must use all pixel elements in a specific way to render it as such.</p><p>Text can therefore only be rendered at a pixel level.</p><p>All of the fucking clear type crap just makes text blurry with shitty colored edges.  No, I don't want my fucking black text to have red or blue around the edges.</p><p>This shit is fucking terrible, and god help you if you rotate your display.  IT NEVER FUCKING WORKS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no such thing as a sub-pixel.If my text is of color X , then you must use all pixel elements in a specific way to render it as such.Text can therefore only be rendered at a pixel level.All of the fucking clear type crap just makes text blurry with shitty colored edges .
No , I do n't want my fucking black text to have red or blue around the edges.This shit is fucking terrible , and god help you if you rotate your display .
IT NEVER FUCKING WORKS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no such thing as a sub-pixel.If my text is of color X, then you must use all pixel elements in a specific way to render it as such.Text can therefore only be rendered at a pixel level.All of the fucking clear type crap just makes text blurry with shitty colored edges.
No, I don't want my fucking black text to have red or blue around the edges.This shit is fucking terrible, and god help you if you rotate your display.
IT NEVER FUCKING WORKS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157398</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>vitaflo</author>
	<datestamp>1258649640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"What with all this AJAX and Javascript stuff out on the web these days, what IE badly needs is a really good Javascript engine."</i></p><p>It really does.  I've been working on an interactive touchscreen kiosk for work, and decided to go the JS route in the browser since it's what I know.  As such I wanted to know the relative JS performance of the various browsers out there.  I used the <a href="http://www2.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9/sunspider.html" title="webkit.org">SunSpider</a> [webkit.org] benchmark to test them.  Here were the results (smaller numbers are better):</p><p>Safari 4.04 (482)<br>Chrome 4.0b (518)<br>FF 3.5 (1502)<br>IE8 (7773)</p><p>Two things surprised me here.  One is that Chrome and Safari are 3x faster than FF.  I was going to use FF for my kiosk until I saw this.  The other is the abysmal performance of IE.  When you are 15x slower than two of your rivals that is just horrible.  As it is I used Chrome for my project and couldn't be happier.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" What with all this AJAX and Javascript stuff out on the web these days , what IE badly needs is a really good Javascript engine .
" It really does .
I 've been working on an interactive touchscreen kiosk for work , and decided to go the JS route in the browser since it 's what I know .
As such I wanted to know the relative JS performance of the various browsers out there .
I used the SunSpider [ webkit.org ] benchmark to test them .
Here were the results ( smaller numbers are better ) : Safari 4.04 ( 482 ) Chrome 4.0b ( 518 ) FF 3.5 ( 1502 ) IE8 ( 7773 ) Two things surprised me here .
One is that Chrome and Safari are 3x faster than FF .
I was going to use FF for my kiosk until I saw this .
The other is the abysmal performance of IE .
When you are 15x slower than two of your rivals that is just horrible .
As it is I used Chrome for my project and could n't be happier .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"What with all this AJAX and Javascript stuff out on the web these days, what IE badly needs is a really good Javascript engine.
"It really does.
I've been working on an interactive touchscreen kiosk for work, and decided to go the JS route in the browser since it's what I know.
As such I wanted to know the relative JS performance of the various browsers out there.
I used the SunSpider [webkit.org] benchmark to test them.
Here were the results (smaller numbers are better):Safari 4.04 (482)Chrome 4.0b (518)FF 3.5 (1502)IE8 (7773)Two things surprised me here.
One is that Chrome and Safari are 3x faster than FF.
I was going to use FF for my kiosk until I saw this.
The other is the abysmal performance of IE.
When you are 15x slower than two of your rivals that is just horrible.
As it is I used Chrome for my project and couldn't be happier.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157646</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258650300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which version of Firefox are you using, and what extensions do you have enabled?</p><p>You can also look into this.</p><p><a href="http://www.ghacks.net/2007/02/26/firefox-memory-tweaks/" title="ghacks.net">http://www.ghacks.net/2007/02/26/firefox-memory-tweaks/</a> [ghacks.net]</p><p>However I haven't had memory issues with Firefox in a couple of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which version of Firefox are you using , and what extensions do you have enabled ? You can also look into this.http : //www.ghacks.net/2007/02/26/firefox-memory-tweaks/ [ ghacks.net ] However I have n't had memory issues with Firefox in a couple of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which version of Firefox are you using, and what extensions do you have enabled?You can also look into this.http://www.ghacks.net/2007/02/26/firefox-memory-tweaks/ [ghacks.net]However I haven't had memory issues with Firefox in a couple of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158690</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258653420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe because ACID is not a benchmark test, but a conformance test?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because ACID is not a benchmark test , but a conformance test ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because ACID is not a benchmark test, but a conformance test?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162836</id>
	<title>The Eternal D&#233;ja Vu Loop</title>
	<author>zunipus</author>
	<datestamp>1258623540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hilarity.</p><p>IE 6 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 5.<br>IE 7 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 6.<br>IE 8 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 7.<br>IE 9 is supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 8.<br>IE 10 will supposedly pick up the speed lag of IE 9.</p><p>Ad Nauseam.</p><p>Something about the definition of 'insanity' comes to mind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hilarity.IE 6 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 5.IE 7 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 6.IE 8 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 7.IE 9 is supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 8.IE 10 will supposedly pick up the speed lag of IE 9.Ad Nauseam.Something about the definition of 'insanity ' comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hilarity.IE 6 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 5.IE 7 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 6.IE 8 was supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 7.IE 9 is supposed to pick up the speed lag of IE 8.IE 10 will supposedly pick up the speed lag of IE 9.Ad Nauseam.Something about the definition of 'insanity' comes to mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156924</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Sockatume</author>
	<datestamp>1258648260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Presumably the standards were written with comprehensibility in mind: that HTML, CSS and so on would be easy to write and interpret.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Presumably the standards were written with comprehensibility in mind : that HTML , CSS and so on would be easy to write and interpret .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Presumably the standards were written with comprehensibility in mind: that HTML, CSS and so on would be easy to write and interpret.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an abbreviated history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser.</p><p>Not true.  W3C has been criticizing Microsoft since day 1 for not following their recommendations.  (They also criticized Netscape.)<br>.</p><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.</p><p>I don't agree, but even if we assume IE was better, the MAIN reason it "won" was because IE was free and Netscape cost $30 at the time (I remember; I paid to get the shiny new Navigator 3 in a box).  Free almost always wins in a battle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties , back when they were the underdog browser.Not true .
W3C has been criticizing Microsoft since day 1 for not following their recommendations .
( They also criticized Netscape .
) . &gt; &gt; &gt; That 's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war ; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.I do n't agree , but even if we assume IE was better , the MAIN reason it " won " was because IE was free and Netscape cost $ 30 at the time ( I remember ; I paid to get the shiny new Navigator 3 in a box ) .
Free almost always wins in a battle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser.Not true.
W3C has been criticizing Microsoft since day 1 for not following their recommendations.
(They also criticized Netscape.
).&gt;&gt;&gt;That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.I don't agree, but even if we assume IE was better, the MAIN reason it "won" was because IE was free and Netscape cost $30 at the time (I remember; I paid to get the shiny new Navigator 3 in a box).
Free almost always wins in a battle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157578</id>
	<title>i think you guys are missing one of the big points</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258650180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>they are trying to converting ie9 to use more directx apis...</p><p>DO NOT WANT</p><p>this is a large part of the reason people still can't migrate off of ie6, stop using this trash !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>they are trying to converting ie9 to use more directx apis...DO NOT WANTthis is a large part of the reason people still ca n't migrate off of ie6 , stop using this trash !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they are trying to converting ie9 to use more directx apis...DO NOT WANTthis is a large part of the reason people still can't migrate off of ie6, stop using this trash !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157486</id>
	<title>Re:Because revamping worked so well for Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258649940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually Microsoft has supported PNG alpha since IE7 AFAIK.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually Microsoft has supported PNG alpha since IE7 AFAIK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually Microsoft has supported PNG alpha since IE7 AFAIK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158542</id>
	<title>Re:god help us all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258653000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Delete linux to play games? Have I missed something here?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Delete linux to play games ?
Have I missed something here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Delete linux to play games?
Have I missed something here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156520</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314</id>
	<title>Here's an abbreviated history</title>
	<author>n0-0p</author>
	<datestamp>1258652340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're wrong. MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser. They were extremely active in the development of XML, HTML4, DOM, and CSS. They proposed and implemented VML, which was combined with PGML to produce SVG. They were the first to begin implementations of numerous standards, including DOM, CSS and SMIL. That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.</p><p>In 1997 Netscape started development on Gecko, in an attempt to leapfrog Microsoft's Trident engine. The problem is that Netscape couldn't get a product to market in a reasonable amount of time. Without a competitor, Microsoft took over the market, peaking at 95\% share in 2003. The die was cast in 2000, however, when Microsoft saw that they'd won browser war. That's when they started moving IE into maintenance, and migrating the top developers over to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET. This left the web stagnating for years with partially implemented standards and no viable competitor to IE.</p><p>Fast forward to late 2004, and Mozilla finally had a polished product built on Netscape's Gecko engine. Firefox emerged as a genuinely superior product to IE, and Mozilla relentlessly proclaimed the web standards mantra. They chipped away at Microsoft's market share until Firefox reached around 10\% at the end of 2005. Meanwhile, companies like Google provided really compelling services based on the web standards supported by Firefox, and eventually other browsers. And of course, there were all the security fumbles with IE, while the competing browsers were (mostly undeservedly) considered safer. At that point, Microsoft finally got worried and pulled IE out of maintenance in early 2006.</p><p>So, now IE is back in active development, and MS is returning to the features they started roughly a decade ago, which places them well behind competitors like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. And Microsoft still doesn't consider IE to be a very important product, because the team today is just a shadow of what they were at their peak in the nineties. That's why the improvements are progressing so slowly, and they're continuing to lag even farther behind the competition. Meanwhile they're hemorrhaging market share at a rate of about 7\% per year.</p><p>TL;DR: MS cared about standards until they were on top; once they owned the browser market, they did nothing to improve it. Now that they're losing the market, they're making a half-hearted attempt to compete again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're wrong .
MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties , back when they were the underdog browser .
They were extremely active in the development of XML , HTML4 , DOM , and CSS .
They proposed and implemented VML , which was combined with PGML to produce SVG .
They were the first to begin implementations of numerous standards , including DOM , CSS and SMIL .
That 's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war ; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.In 1997 Netscape started development on Gecko , in an attempt to leapfrog Microsoft 's Trident engine .
The problem is that Netscape could n't get a product to market in a reasonable amount of time .
Without a competitor , Microsoft took over the market , peaking at 95 \ % share in 2003 .
The die was cast in 2000 , however , when Microsoft saw that they 'd won browser war .
That 's when they started moving IE into maintenance , and migrating the top developers over to .NET .
This left the web stagnating for years with partially implemented standards and no viable competitor to IE.Fast forward to late 2004 , and Mozilla finally had a polished product built on Netscape 's Gecko engine .
Firefox emerged as a genuinely superior product to IE , and Mozilla relentlessly proclaimed the web standards mantra .
They chipped away at Microsoft 's market share until Firefox reached around 10 \ % at the end of 2005 .
Meanwhile , companies like Google provided really compelling services based on the web standards supported by Firefox , and eventually other browsers .
And of course , there were all the security fumbles with IE , while the competing browsers were ( mostly undeservedly ) considered safer .
At that point , Microsoft finally got worried and pulled IE out of maintenance in early 2006.So , now IE is back in active development , and MS is returning to the features they started roughly a decade ago , which places them well behind competitors like Firefox , Chrome , Safari , and Opera .
And Microsoft still does n't consider IE to be a very important product , because the team today is just a shadow of what they were at their peak in the nineties .
That 's why the improvements are progressing so slowly , and they 're continuing to lag even farther behind the competition .
Meanwhile they 're hemorrhaging market share at a rate of about 7 \ % per year.TL ; DR : MS cared about standards until they were on top ; once they owned the browser market , they did nothing to improve it .
Now that they 're losing the market , they 're making a half-hearted attempt to compete again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're wrong.
MS was a huge supporter of web standards back in the mid to late nineties, back when they were the underdog browser.
They were extremely active in the development of XML, HTML4, DOM, and CSS.
They proposed and implemented VML, which was combined with PGML to produce SVG.
They were the first to begin implementations of numerous standards, including DOM, CSS and SMIL.
That's a big part of why Microsoft won the first browser war; because they had a genuinely superior product to Netscape.In 1997 Netscape started development on Gecko, in an attempt to leapfrog Microsoft's Trident engine.
The problem is that Netscape couldn't get a product to market in a reasonable amount of time.
Without a competitor, Microsoft took over the market, peaking at 95\% share in 2003.
The die was cast in 2000, however, when Microsoft saw that they'd won browser war.
That's when they started moving IE into maintenance, and migrating the top developers over to .NET.
This left the web stagnating for years with partially implemented standards and no viable competitor to IE.Fast forward to late 2004, and Mozilla finally had a polished product built on Netscape's Gecko engine.
Firefox emerged as a genuinely superior product to IE, and Mozilla relentlessly proclaimed the web standards mantra.
They chipped away at Microsoft's market share until Firefox reached around 10\% at the end of 2005.
Meanwhile, companies like Google provided really compelling services based on the web standards supported by Firefox, and eventually other browsers.
And of course, there were all the security fumbles with IE, while the competing browsers were (mostly undeservedly) considered safer.
At that point, Microsoft finally got worried and pulled IE out of maintenance in early 2006.So, now IE is back in active development, and MS is returning to the features they started roughly a decade ago, which places them well behind competitors like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.
And Microsoft still doesn't consider IE to be a very important product, because the team today is just a shadow of what they were at their peak in the nineties.
That's why the improvements are progressing so slowly, and they're continuing to lag even farther behind the competition.
Meanwhile they're hemorrhaging market share at a rate of about 7\% per year.TL;DR: MS cared about standards until they were on top; once they owned the browser market, they did nothing to improve it.
Now that they're losing the market, they're making a half-hearted attempt to compete again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157678</id>
	<title>Re:IE</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258650360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the point is it will suck less!</p><p><div class="quote"><p>IE9, it's still IE but it sucks less!</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the point is it will suck less ! IE9 , it 's still IE but it sucks less !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the point is it will suck less!IE9, it's still IE but it sucks less!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162364</id>
	<title>Re:Sub-Pixels</title>
	<author>nogginthenog</author>
	<datestamp>1258621980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Totally agree, it reminds me of using my Amiga on a CRT TV.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Totally agree , it reminds me of using my Amiga on a CRT TV .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Totally agree, it reminds me of using my Amiga on a CRT TV.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157254</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1258649160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It looks like my ADD is finally paying off, I always seem to close my browser when I get focused on something else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like my ADD is finally paying off , I always seem to close my browser when I get focused on something else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like my ADD is finally paying off, I always seem to close my browser when I get focused on something else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157186</id>
	<title>Aren't you microsofties lucky there is competition</title>
	<author>jabjoe</author>
	<datestamp>1258648980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You would still be stuck with IE6 otherwise.<br>
You lucky Linux netbooks came along or you still be stuck with Vista.<br>
In fact, the fear free software creates inside MS you owe much too....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You would still be stuck with IE6 otherwise .
You lucky Linux netbooks came along or you still be stuck with Vista .
In fact , the fear free software creates inside MS you owe much too.... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would still be stuck with IE6 otherwise.
You lucky Linux netbooks came along or you still be stuck with Vista.
In fact, the fear free software creates inside MS you owe much too.... :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162018</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>KnownIssues</author>
	<datestamp>1258663980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Netscape introduced no less than six non-standard HTML tags: blink, keygen, layer, multicol, and nolayer--the most famous/notorius being blink. Which you can do when you're a dominant browser. I realize it's cynical, but standards compliance hasn't always been a selling point, and justifiably so. I don't want to philosophize about standards, since that will just get torn to shreds, but I think the idea that standards were well defined <i>and universally followed by everyone else</i> until Microsoft showed up is certainly hard to defend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Netscape introduced no less than six non-standard HTML tags : blink , keygen , layer , multicol , and nolayer--the most famous/notorius being blink .
Which you can do when you 're a dominant browser .
I realize it 's cynical , but standards compliance has n't always been a selling point , and justifiably so .
I do n't want to philosophize about standards , since that will just get torn to shreds , but I think the idea that standards were well defined and universally followed by everyone else until Microsoft showed up is certainly hard to defend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Netscape introduced no less than six non-standard HTML tags: blink, keygen, layer, multicol, and nolayer--the most famous/notorius being blink.
Which you can do when you're a dominant browser.
I realize it's cynical, but standards compliance hasn't always been a selling point, and justifiably so.
I don't want to philosophize about standards, since that will just get torn to shreds, but I think the idea that standards were well defined and universally followed by everyone else until Microsoft showed up is certainly hard to defend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157372</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156520</id>
	<title>god help us all</title>
	<author>zardozo</author>
	<datestamp>1258647060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they succeed. We are already forced to delete Linux to play  games, now we'll have to delete Linux to surf the web!</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they succeed .
We are already forced to delete Linux to play games , now we 'll have to delete Linux to surf the web !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they succeed.
We are already forced to delete Linux to play  games, now we'll have to delete Linux to surf the web!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158324</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>BZ</author>
	<datestamp>1258652400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Two things surprised me here. One is that Chrome and Safari are 3x faster than FF</p><p>There are a few things going on here:</p><p>1)  The public sunspider benchmark has a bug in that it uses a Spidermonkey-specific<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; extension in one of the tests that slows it down in Firefox only.  Apple has fixes the<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; bug in their revision control system but is refusing to push the fix out to the public<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; site.<br>2)  Chrome and Safari are in fact faster on sunspider than Firefox.  Firefox is up to 5x<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; faster on other JS benchmarks.  Depending on exactly what you're doing, you might have<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; better performance with one or the other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Two things surprised me here .
One is that Chrome and Safari are 3x faster than FFThere are a few things going on here : 1 ) The public sunspider benchmark has a bug in that it uses a Spidermonkey-specific         extension in one of the tests that slows it down in Firefox only .
Apple has fixes the         bug in their revision control system but is refusing to push the fix out to the public         site.2 ) Chrome and Safari are in fact faster on sunspider than Firefox .
Firefox is up to 5x         faster on other JS benchmarks .
Depending on exactly what you 're doing , you might have         better performance with one or the other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Two things surprised me here.
One is that Chrome and Safari are 3x faster than FFThere are a few things going on here:1)  The public sunspider benchmark has a bug in that it uses a Spidermonkey-specific
        extension in one of the tests that slows it down in Firefox only.
Apple has fixes the
        bug in their revision control system but is refusing to push the fix out to the public
        site.2)  Chrome and Safari are in fact faster on sunspider than Firefox.
Firefox is up to 5x
        faster on other JS benchmarks.
Depending on exactly what you're doing, you might have
        better performance with one or the other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158652</id>
	<title>Re:Add-On System</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258653300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, isn't the Fiefox add-on system the exact same as IE's add-on system but with a nicer installer and updater? I want to know how Mozilla hypnotized so many Slashdotters into thinking IE has no add-ons-- have you all seriously <i>never</i> seen an IE install with a third-party toolbar?</p><p>And I think it's Flash that kills keyboard shortcuts, because I have that same problem with Firefox, but only on pages with Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , is n't the Fiefox add-on system the exact same as IE 's add-on system but with a nicer installer and updater ?
I want to know how Mozilla hypnotized so many Slashdotters into thinking IE has no add-ons-- have you all seriously never seen an IE install with a third-party toolbar ? And I think it 's Flash that kills keyboard shortcuts , because I have that same problem with Firefox , but only on pages with Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, isn't the Fiefox add-on system the exact same as IE's add-on system but with a nicer installer and updater?
I want to know how Mozilla hypnotized so many Slashdotters into thinking IE has no add-ons-- have you all seriously never seen an IE install with a third-party toolbar?And I think it's Flash that kills keyboard shortcuts, because I have that same problem with Firefox, but only on pages with Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157048</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Tolkien</author>
	<datestamp>1258648680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The leopard changed its' spots, the longhorn didn't... uh... doesn't... uh... wait...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The leopard changed its ' spots , the longhorn did n't... uh... does n't... uh... wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The leopard changed its' spots, the longhorn didn't... uh... doesn't... uh... wait...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158676</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>A Friendly Troll</author>
	<datestamp>1258653360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spill chokes will only get you so far.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>built in, in line spell check</p></div><p>That would be "built-in" and "in-line" (or "inline"). Your spoiled cheque cannot correct something that's waiting in line.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity</p></div><p>You don't want a possessive adjective; you merely want a contraction of "it is". Your spelunking chalk cannot correct that, either.</p><p>While having a spanking chunk seems a great idea at first glance, it's a very blunt instrument that helps correct the most basic spelling errors and cannot be relied on for anything more than that. As such, it is of extremely limited use and rather unhelpful...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Speed and Acid 3 compliance do not keep me using Firefox, spell check, and adblock do.</p></div><p>...because, amongst other things, it will not transform commas into semicolons, nor remove excess commas, nor properly capitalize names such as Adblock.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Spill chokes will only get you so far.built in , in line spell checkThat would be " built-in " and " in-line " ( or " inline " ) .
Your spoiled cheque can not correct something that 's waiting in line.Spell check is not a luxury , its a necessityYou do n't want a possessive adjective ; you merely want a contraction of " it is " .
Your spelunking chalk can not correct that , either.While having a spanking chunk seems a great idea at first glance , it 's a very blunt instrument that helps correct the most basic spelling errors and can not be relied on for anything more than that .
As such , it is of extremely limited use and rather unhelpful...Speed and Acid 3 compliance do not keep me using Firefox , spell check , and adblock do....because , amongst other things , it will not transform commas into semicolons , nor remove excess commas , nor properly capitalize names such as Adblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spill chokes will only get you so far.built in, in line spell checkThat would be "built-in" and "in-line" (or "inline").
Your spoiled cheque cannot correct something that's waiting in line.Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessityYou don't want a possessive adjective; you merely want a contraction of "it is".
Your spelunking chalk cannot correct that, either.While having a spanking chunk seems a great idea at first glance, it's a very blunt instrument that helps correct the most basic spelling errors and cannot be relied on for anything more than that.
As such, it is of extremely limited use and rather unhelpful...Speed and Acid 3 compliance do not keep me using Firefox, spell check, and adblock do....because, amongst other things, it will not transform commas into semicolons, nor remove excess commas, nor properly capitalize names such as Adblock.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not offtopic; both IE and FF do have serious, serious problems with memory after any amount of time spent browsing. I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF and it'll hit the 1.8GB barrier within two to three days, and crash. Time and time again I'm told I'm "using it wrong". I don't use IE nearly as much, but the job demands it occasionally - and it too will tend to glom up with cruft if you leave 10+ tabs running for more than a few hours.<br><br>Incessantly annoying, and one of the prime reasons I'm still an Opera loyalist, despite the absence of a fire'n'forget ad blocker - it's fast out of the box, has sane defaults and doesn't slow down over time (I spend about 45mins on every new user account to get FF to a state where I find it as usable as Opera, which takes me 10mins of configuring), I just can't use it at work since it doesn't get along with our proxy.<br><br>The problem with IE and FF is that because I'm not a common user profile (I'm always told people can't cope with having more than five tabs open; suck it, I have excellent spatial awareness) and the memory problems are damned hard to fix (heck, submitting a decent bug report about it is hard) - so for most people it's easier to just add a whizz-bang feature with a meaningless name that sounds impressive to a non-techie and SEP the memory problems away.<br><br>Sad but true.<br>&lt;/minirant&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not offtopic ; both IE and FF do have serious , serious problems with memory after any amount of time spent browsing .
I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF and it 'll hit the 1.8GB barrier within two to three days , and crash .
Time and time again I 'm told I 'm " using it wrong " .
I do n't use IE nearly as much , but the job demands it occasionally - and it too will tend to glom up with cruft if you leave 10 + tabs running for more than a few hours.Incessantly annoying , and one of the prime reasons I 'm still an Opera loyalist , despite the absence of a fire'n'forget ad blocker - it 's fast out of the box , has sane defaults and does n't slow down over time ( I spend about 45mins on every new user account to get FF to a state where I find it as usable as Opera , which takes me 10mins of configuring ) , I just ca n't use it at work since it does n't get along with our proxy.The problem with IE and FF is that because I 'm not a common user profile ( I 'm always told people ca n't cope with having more than five tabs open ; suck it , I have excellent spatial awareness ) and the memory problems are damned hard to fix ( heck , submitting a decent bug report about it is hard ) - so for most people it 's easier to just add a whizz-bang feature with a meaningless name that sounds impressive to a non-techie and SEP the memory problems away.Sad but true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not offtopic; both IE and FF do have serious, serious problems with memory after any amount of time spent browsing.
I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF and it'll hit the 1.8GB barrier within two to three days, and crash.
Time and time again I'm told I'm "using it wrong".
I don't use IE nearly as much, but the job demands it occasionally - and it too will tend to glom up with cruft if you leave 10+ tabs running for more than a few hours.Incessantly annoying, and one of the prime reasons I'm still an Opera loyalist, despite the absence of a fire'n'forget ad blocker - it's fast out of the box, has sane defaults and doesn't slow down over time (I spend about 45mins on every new user account to get FF to a state where I find it as usable as Opera, which takes me 10mins of configuring), I just can't use it at work since it doesn't get along with our proxy.The problem with IE and FF is that because I'm not a common user profile (I'm always told people can't cope with having more than five tabs open; suck it, I have excellent spatial awareness) and the memory problems are damned hard to fix (heck, submitting a decent bug report about it is hard) - so for most people it's easier to just add a whizz-bang feature with a meaningless name that sounds impressive to a non-techie and SEP the memory problems away.Sad but true.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159218</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>icepick72</author>
	<datestamp>1258655100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt their future lies 100\% in the cloud - that's just idealism or marketing - shifting public perception to compete with Google and the likes; however the reality is corporations will always want to control their own little part of the cloud, just as many<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. people do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt their future lies 100 \ % in the cloud - that 's just idealism or marketing - shifting public perception to compete with Google and the likes ; however the reality is corporations will always want to control their own little part of the cloud , just as many / .
people do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt their future lies 100\% in the cloud - that's just idealism or marketing - shifting public perception to compete with Google and the likes; however the reality is corporations will always want to control their own little part of the cloud, just as many /.
people do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157690</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156828</id>
	<title>Why do I get the visual</title>
	<author>ArhcAngel</author>
	<datestamp>1258648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I read the post the first image I got was <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Hodgman" title="wikipedia.org">John Hodgman</a> [wikipedia.org] saying 'Trust me, this time it's going to be different'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I read the post the first image I got was John Hodgman [ wikipedia.org ] saying 'Trust me , this time it 's going to be different' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I read the post the first image I got was John Hodgman [wikipedia.org] saying 'Trust me, this time it's going to be different'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160760</id>
	<title>Opera FTW...</title>
	<author>Zoidbot</author>
	<datestamp>1258659780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yawn..</p><p>Opera already have stuff working in this area...</p><p><a href="http://my.opera.com/core/blog/index.dml/tag/Opera\%203d\%20svg\%20canvas" title="opera.com" rel="nofollow">http://my.opera.com/core/blog/index.dml/tag/Opera\%203d\%20svg\%20canvas</a> [opera.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yawn..Opera already have stuff working in this area...http : //my.opera.com/core/blog/index.dml/tag/Opera \ % 203d \ % 20svg \ % 20canvas [ opera.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yawn..Opera already have stuff working in this area...http://my.opera.com/core/blog/index.dml/tag/Opera\%203d\%20svg\%20canvas [opera.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158458</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258652760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be fair, Netscape decided not to support them either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be fair , Netscape decided not to support them either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be fair, Netscape decided not to support them either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157468</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>nmg196</author>
	<datestamp>1258649880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 from me.<br>Firefox has the worst management of any browser out there and it keeps getting worse with each new version.<br>In every single release they claim to sorted out memory leaks, but they haven't even started. I started Firefox this morning and it's already up to 850MB and needs restarting and I don't really even have any extensions installed anymore. You'd never get that with IE8 or Chome - they never seem to go over 200-300MB, no longer how long they're left running for.  Don't get me wrong - Firefox is still my favourite and default browser - but don't ever try to claim to me that it's faster or better than Internet Explorer or Chrome because it's certainly NOT. Perhaps when it very first loads it is, but not in the real-world after 4-6 hours of usage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 from me.Firefox has the worst management of any browser out there and it keeps getting worse with each new version.In every single release they claim to sorted out memory leaks , but they have n't even started .
I started Firefox this morning and it 's already up to 850MB and needs restarting and I do n't really even have any extensions installed anymore .
You 'd never get that with IE8 or Chome - they never seem to go over 200-300MB , no longer how long they 're left running for .
Do n't get me wrong - Firefox is still my favourite and default browser - but do n't ever try to claim to me that it 's faster or better than Internet Explorer or Chrome because it 's certainly NOT .
Perhaps when it very first loads it is , but not in the real-world after 4-6 hours of usage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 from me.Firefox has the worst management of any browser out there and it keeps getting worse with each new version.In every single release they claim to sorted out memory leaks, but they haven't even started.
I started Firefox this morning and it's already up to 850MB and needs restarting and I don't really even have any extensions installed anymore.
You'd never get that with IE8 or Chome - they never seem to go over 200-300MB, no longer how long they're left running for.
Don't get me wrong - Firefox is still my favourite and default browser - but don't ever try to claim to me that it's faster or better than Internet Explorer or Chrome because it's certainly NOT.
Perhaps when it very first loads it is, but not in the real-world after 4-6 hours of usage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157738</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>rainmaestro</author>
	<datestamp>1258650600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still get the memory leaks with FF3. If I leave the browser open with a dozen tabs overnight, when I get up in the morning it will be spiking at over 1GB.</p><p>A few weeks ago, I went out of town for 3 days. When I came back (I'd left FF open) it had eaten up 3GB of RAM and 95\% of my swap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still get the memory leaks with FF3 .
If I leave the browser open with a dozen tabs overnight , when I get up in the morning it will be spiking at over 1GB.A few weeks ago , I went out of town for 3 days .
When I came back ( I 'd left FF open ) it had eaten up 3GB of RAM and 95 \ % of my swap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still get the memory leaks with FF3.
If I leave the browser open with a dozen tabs overnight, when I get up in the morning it will be spiking at over 1GB.A few weeks ago, I went out of town for 3 days.
When I came back (I'd left FF open) it had eaten up 3GB of RAM and 95\% of my swap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160530</id>
	<title>They said what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258659060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... promising<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."<br>
OK, I've read enough.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft ... promising ... " OK , I 've read enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft ... promising ..."
OK, I've read enough.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158948</id>
	<title>Video link</title>
	<author>wilsonthecat</author>
	<datestamp>1258654260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you watch this <a href="http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/11/18/ie9-unveiled-faster-more-standards-compliant-directx-accele/" title="downloadsquad.com" rel="nofollow">video</a> [downloadsquad.com] you will be amazed that IE9 can now do rounded corners. The clueless presenter is completely unaware that Firefox and Webkit have been doing this for years and is "super impressed".

It's a bit sad the huge divide that exists now.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you watch this video [ downloadsquad.com ] you will be amazed that IE9 can now do rounded corners .
The clueless presenter is completely unaware that Firefox and Webkit have been doing this for years and is " super impressed " .
It 's a bit sad the huge divide that exists now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you watch this video [downloadsquad.com] you will be amazed that IE9 can now do rounded corners.
The clueless presenter is completely unaware that Firefox and Webkit have been doing this for years and is "super impressed".
It's a bit sad the huge divide that exists now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156736</id>
	<title>Stability, memory, and pre-rendering speed?</title>
	<author>akakaak</author>
	<datestamp>1258647660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope they work on stability, memory usage, and the pre-rendering speed! I've found IE8 to be less stable and use more memory than recent past versions of IE. And just getting a new blank tab to come up often involves a fair amount of thumb-twiddling. And despite whatever usage of different processes for different tabs they claim to be employing, I find that the entire browser usually hangs and crashes when there is a problem with a page. Rendering speed and font readability are the least of their problems!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope they work on stability , memory usage , and the pre-rendering speed !
I 've found IE8 to be less stable and use more memory than recent past versions of IE .
And just getting a new blank tab to come up often involves a fair amount of thumb-twiddling .
And despite whatever usage of different processes for different tabs they claim to be employing , I find that the entire browser usually hangs and crashes when there is a problem with a page .
Rendering speed and font readability are the least of their problems !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope they work on stability, memory usage, and the pre-rendering speed!
I've found IE8 to be less stable and use more memory than recent past versions of IE.
And just getting a new blank tab to come up often involves a fair amount of thumb-twiddling.
And despite whatever usage of different processes for different tabs they claim to be employing, I find that the entire browser usually hangs and crashes when there is a problem with a page.
Rendering speed and font readability are the least of their problems!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159008</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>GrumblyStuff</author>
	<datestamp>1258654500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What version of Opera are you using?</p><p>I've been using Opera for most everything and Firefox for when websites throw a hissyfit at the big O but after upgrading to 10, I was ready to go FF full time.  I don't know what they did but going from 9 to 10 added some serious performance issues when opening a new tab or loading page.  I'm talking half a dozen seconds of CPU going full throttle and Opera being frozen for the entire duration for just clicking on a link.</p><p>Thankfully, I was able to get and install 9.6.  Oh, sweet, sweet mouse gestures.  I missed you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What version of Opera are you using ? I 've been using Opera for most everything and Firefox for when websites throw a hissyfit at the big O but after upgrading to 10 , I was ready to go FF full time .
I do n't know what they did but going from 9 to 10 added some serious performance issues when opening a new tab or loading page .
I 'm talking half a dozen seconds of CPU going full throttle and Opera being frozen for the entire duration for just clicking on a link.Thankfully , I was able to get and install 9.6 .
Oh , sweet , sweet mouse gestures .
I missed you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What version of Opera are you using?I've been using Opera for most everything and Firefox for when websites throw a hissyfit at the big O but after upgrading to 10, I was ready to go FF full time.
I don't know what they did but going from 9 to 10 added some serious performance issues when opening a new tab or loading page.
I'm talking half a dozen seconds of CPU going full throttle and Opera being frozen for the entire duration for just clicking on a link.Thankfully, I was able to get and install 9.6.
Oh, sweet, sweet mouse gestures.
I missed you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157532</id>
	<title>Finally!</title>
	<author>samcan</author>
	<datestamp>1258650000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We absolutely, positively promise that this is going to be the last version for Windows XP! No exceptions!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We absolutely , positively promise that this is going to be the last version for Windows XP !
No exceptions !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We absolutely, positively promise that this is going to be the last version for Windows XP!
No exceptions!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157306</id>
	<title>It's the addons, stupid!</title>
	<author>srealm</author>
	<datestamp>1258649340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My biggest problem with IE is not speed, resource usage, the tabs system, or anything like that.</p><p>I use firefox for one reason and one reason only.  It has some excellent addons for it because there is a very well-defined place to GET addons, and anyone can submit one easily.</p><p>Not to mention that FireFox isn't worrying about trying to ensure people don't compete with them on their other products.</p><p>My five essential addons for FireFox are:<br>- AdBlock Plus (of which the more important part is the filters that are auto-updated)<br>- NoScript<br>- FoxyProxy (specifically for selecting a proxy by the URL automatically)<br>- User Agent Switcher<br>- Download Helper</p><p>I've not personally seen a nice central site like FF's addons page to manage addons - and without something like this, upgrading has to be done manually for each, and you are responsible for checking for updates and such.  A pain in the arse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My biggest problem with IE is not speed , resource usage , the tabs system , or anything like that.I use firefox for one reason and one reason only .
It has some excellent addons for it because there is a very well-defined place to GET addons , and anyone can submit one easily.Not to mention that FireFox is n't worrying about trying to ensure people do n't compete with them on their other products.My five essential addons for FireFox are : - AdBlock Plus ( of which the more important part is the filters that are auto-updated ) - NoScript- FoxyProxy ( specifically for selecting a proxy by the URL automatically ) - User Agent Switcher- Download HelperI 've not personally seen a nice central site like FF 's addons page to manage addons - and without something like this , upgrading has to be done manually for each , and you are responsible for checking for updates and such .
A pain in the arse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My biggest problem with IE is not speed, resource usage, the tabs system, or anything like that.I use firefox for one reason and one reason only.
It has some excellent addons for it because there is a very well-defined place to GET addons, and anyone can submit one easily.Not to mention that FireFox isn't worrying about trying to ensure people don't compete with them on their other products.My five essential addons for FireFox are:- AdBlock Plus (of which the more important part is the filters that are auto-updated)- NoScript- FoxyProxy (specifically for selecting a proxy by the URL automatically)- User Agent Switcher- Download HelperI've not personally seen a nice central site like FF's addons page to manage addons - and without something like this, upgrading has to be done manually for each, and you are responsible for checking for updates and such.
A pain in the arse.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156606</id>
	<title>With a fast CPU and a dual GPU setup...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258647240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...users will finally be able to browse the Crysis website with acceptable framerates.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...users will finally be able to browse the Crysis website with acceptable framerates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...users will finally be able to browse the Crysis website with acceptable framerates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158270</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>MBGMorden</author>
	<datestamp>1258652160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Accelerate text and graphics performance? My web TEXT was rendering just fine 15 years ago on a 486 running Netscape Navigator.   Oh well - I guess that they really do need to close the gap.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Accelerate text and graphics performance ?
My web TEXT was rendering just fine 15 years ago on a 486 running Netscape Navigator .
Oh well - I guess that they really do need to close the gap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Accelerate text and graphics performance?
My web TEXT was rendering just fine 15 years ago on a 486 running Netscape Navigator.
Oh well - I guess that they really do need to close the gap.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156970</id>
	<title>Re:Sub Pixel rendering, really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect that the article author paraphrased beyond his competence, to coin a phrase. Subpixel rendering's been in IE for a long while.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect that the article author paraphrased beyond his competence , to coin a phrase .
Subpixel rendering 's been in IE for a long while .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect that the article author paraphrased beyond his competence, to coin a phrase.
Subpixel rendering's been in IE for a long while.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158704</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258653480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just checked my Firefox memory usage after having 20+ tabs open all day... 250 Meg. I understand older versions had a problem with memory and would gradually take over the machine but not in the last year or so.</p></div><p>And 20+MB per tab is somehow reasonable? The competition is no better, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... this isn't something that seems acceptable to me.  The improvements they've made are great - but they seem to have stopped at "we're not leaking anymore".
</p><p>
As far as explorer: it's also the desktop interface, providing task bar and desktop functionality. Also provides your shortcut keys (Win+whatever), bitmap caching,  etc.  40MB is still probably higher than it should be, but it does do more than just providing your directory views. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just checked my Firefox memory usage after having 20 + tabs open all day... 250 Meg .
I understand older versions had a problem with memory and would gradually take over the machine but not in the last year or so.And 20 + MB per tab is somehow reasonable ?
The competition is no better , but ... this is n't something that seems acceptable to me .
The improvements they 've made are great - but they seem to have stopped at " we 're not leaking anymore " .
As far as explorer : it 's also the desktop interface , providing task bar and desktop functionality .
Also provides your shortcut keys ( Win + whatever ) , bitmap caching , etc .
40MB is still probably higher than it should be , but it does do more than just providing your directory views .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just checked my Firefox memory usage after having 20+ tabs open all day... 250 Meg.
I understand older versions had a problem with memory and would gradually take over the machine but not in the last year or so.And 20+MB per tab is somehow reasonable?
The competition is no better, but ... this isn't something that seems acceptable to me.
The improvements they've made are great - but they seem to have stopped at "we're not leaking anymore".
As far as explorer: it's also the desktop interface, providing task bar and desktop functionality.
Also provides your shortcut keys (Win+whatever), bitmap caching,  etc.
40MB is still probably higher than it should be, but it does do more than just providing your directory views. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156832</id>
	<title>font anti-aliasing?!?</title>
	<author>deander2</author>
	<datestamp>1258648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In addition to better performance, this technology shift also increases font quality and readability with sub-pixel positioning:</i></p><p>they say "sub-pixel positioning", but the example shows aliased vs. anti-aliased font rendering....  *really*?  that's their "closing the gap w/ rivals" strategy?  WOW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In addition to better performance , this technology shift also increases font quality and readability with sub-pixel positioning : they say " sub-pixel positioning " , but the example shows aliased vs. anti-aliased font rendering.... * really * ? that 's their " closing the gap w/ rivals " strategy ?
WOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In addition to better performance, this technology shift also increases font quality and readability with sub-pixel positioning:they say "sub-pixel positioning", but the example shows aliased vs. anti-aliased font rendering....  *really*?  that's their "closing the gap w/ rivals" strategy?
WOW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156994</id>
	<title>DirectX it is then?</title>
	<author>Xest</author>
	<datestamp>1258648560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find the choice of DirectX quite interesting, I've been looking recently at doing some basic game programming again just for a bit of fun and was rather shocked to find what an utter mess graphics programming has become on the Windows platform.</p><p>Many years ago, when I last played around with graphics programming it was pretty straightforward, you used DirectX or OpenGL. For your game editors you'd use MFC or the Win32 API (or something 3rd party like SDL). It didn't really matter which you chose, but if you chose say C++, OpenGL and MFC for example you'd just use those for your editors, the game engine, you could use that one set of technologies for your entire development process.</p><p>Fast forward 10 years to the point we have things like Java and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET offering perfectly acceptable managed code performance, with the benefits you'd expect from managed code- no worrying about deleting variables, pointers and so on, you can just write your code and it works, and works on whatever platform there is a VM for. Tools like Visual Studio have taken forward editing of the interface fairly well for Windows Forms and such and WPF. I thought great,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, Windows Forms, XNA, making an editor and a game will make no time at all.</p><p>What should have happened in the last 10 years:</p><p>The single toolchain should still exist, but with the benefits of managed code,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET and such to make development across the relevant platforms (i.e. for the XBox 360 and PC with XNA) much more quick and easy.</p><p>What actually happened:</p><p>GDI is crap, they release DirectX and GDI+. Later<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET came along, Microsoft thought, hey, we need a managed version of DirectX and created Managed DirectX. They start thinking about interfaces for the future and realise GDI+ and Windows Forms don't cut it, apparently DirectX isn't to stray from games related stuff so they release WPF which has it's own 2D and 3D rendering libraries. They want XBox development, using C++ or C# with DirectX would be too easy, so instead let's create a new API and set of tools, called XNA they think. Great, and XNA is quick and easy to get to grips with, I'll give them that, in fact, it's so easy they decide to ditch Managed DirectX because it's now obsolete. But wait, what's that? XNA makes it easy to import content and compile it into the executable but is crap for your Windows level editors because it's not designed for loading content on the fly? The recommendation for managed Windows apps is WPF, but what use is that when my game engine is in XNA  because it needs to run on the 360? What about editors that require decent 2D rendering of primitive shapes rather than sprites? WPF is great, XNA isn't so again, half the project in C# w/ XNA, half in C# w/ WPF? Somewhere in there along came Direct2D which gives you your 2D but then it's back to C++ for half the project and C# for the other half. So we now have Direct3D, Direct2D, GDI+, WPF, XNA and the obsoleted Managed DirectX all to do very similar tasks, but neither allowing you to do so with a single toolchain for something like an Xbox 360/PC community game that requires decent windows editors. There are 3rd party solutions like SlimDX which is a managed wrapper for DirectX but it's still a port to XNA for the community game. Effectively with have GDI/GDI+ for low end Windows forms 2D rendering, WPF for high end Windows Forms rendering, DirectX for C++ graphics development, XNA for Xbox and Windows development, but not for use in Windows applications that need decent 2D primitive support and to load models on the fly etc. Oh, and if you previously jumped on the Managed DirectX bandwagon, then, well, apparently it's tough shit.</p><p>I can't help feel Microsoft have really dropped the ball- DirectX could've done the lot if the project was managed properly. Quite why they didn't stick with DirectX, keep Managed DirectX and integrate these into WPF for rendering purposes I don't know. We've gone from a fairly unified graphics pipeline to multip</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find the choice of DirectX quite interesting , I 've been looking recently at doing some basic game programming again just for a bit of fun and was rather shocked to find what an utter mess graphics programming has become on the Windows platform.Many years ago , when I last played around with graphics programming it was pretty straightforward , you used DirectX or OpenGL .
For your game editors you 'd use MFC or the Win32 API ( or something 3rd party like SDL ) .
It did n't really matter which you chose , but if you chose say C + + , OpenGL and MFC for example you 'd just use those for your editors , the game engine , you could use that one set of technologies for your entire development process.Fast forward 10 years to the point we have things like Java and .NET offering perfectly acceptable managed code performance , with the benefits you 'd expect from managed code- no worrying about deleting variables , pointers and so on , you can just write your code and it works , and works on whatever platform there is a VM for .
Tools like Visual Studio have taken forward editing of the interface fairly well for Windows Forms and such and WPF .
I thought great , .NET , Windows Forms , XNA , making an editor and a game will make no time at all.What should have happened in the last 10 years : The single toolchain should still exist , but with the benefits of managed code , .NET and such to make development across the relevant platforms ( i.e .
for the XBox 360 and PC with XNA ) much more quick and easy.What actually happened : GDI is crap , they release DirectX and GDI + .
Later .NET came along , Microsoft thought , hey , we need a managed version of DirectX and created Managed DirectX .
They start thinking about interfaces for the future and realise GDI + and Windows Forms do n't cut it , apparently DirectX is n't to stray from games related stuff so they release WPF which has it 's own 2D and 3D rendering libraries .
They want XBox development , using C + + or C # with DirectX would be too easy , so instead let 's create a new API and set of tools , called XNA they think .
Great , and XNA is quick and easy to get to grips with , I 'll give them that , in fact , it 's so easy they decide to ditch Managed DirectX because it 's now obsolete .
But wait , what 's that ?
XNA makes it easy to import content and compile it into the executable but is crap for your Windows level editors because it 's not designed for loading content on the fly ?
The recommendation for managed Windows apps is WPF , but what use is that when my game engine is in XNA because it needs to run on the 360 ?
What about editors that require decent 2D rendering of primitive shapes rather than sprites ?
WPF is great , XNA is n't so again , half the project in C # w/ XNA , half in C # w/ WPF ?
Somewhere in there along came Direct2D which gives you your 2D but then it 's back to C + + for half the project and C # for the other half .
So we now have Direct3D , Direct2D , GDI + , WPF , XNA and the obsoleted Managed DirectX all to do very similar tasks , but neither allowing you to do so with a single toolchain for something like an Xbox 360/PC community game that requires decent windows editors .
There are 3rd party solutions like SlimDX which is a managed wrapper for DirectX but it 's still a port to XNA for the community game .
Effectively with have GDI/GDI + for low end Windows forms 2D rendering , WPF for high end Windows Forms rendering , DirectX for C + + graphics development , XNA for Xbox and Windows development , but not for use in Windows applications that need decent 2D primitive support and to load models on the fly etc .
Oh , and if you previously jumped on the Managed DirectX bandwagon , then , well , apparently it 's tough shit.I ca n't help feel Microsoft have really dropped the ball- DirectX could 've done the lot if the project was managed properly .
Quite why they did n't stick with DirectX , keep Managed DirectX and integrate these into WPF for rendering purposes I do n't know .
We 've gone from a fairly unified graphics pipeline to multip</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find the choice of DirectX quite interesting, I've been looking recently at doing some basic game programming again just for a bit of fun and was rather shocked to find what an utter mess graphics programming has become on the Windows platform.Many years ago, when I last played around with graphics programming it was pretty straightforward, you used DirectX or OpenGL.
For your game editors you'd use MFC or the Win32 API (or something 3rd party like SDL).
It didn't really matter which you chose, but if you chose say C++, OpenGL and MFC for example you'd just use those for your editors, the game engine, you could use that one set of technologies for your entire development process.Fast forward 10 years to the point we have things like Java and .NET offering perfectly acceptable managed code performance, with the benefits you'd expect from managed code- no worrying about deleting variables, pointers and so on, you can just write your code and it works, and works on whatever platform there is a VM for.
Tools like Visual Studio have taken forward editing of the interface fairly well for Windows Forms and such and WPF.
I thought great, .NET, Windows Forms, XNA, making an editor and a game will make no time at all.What should have happened in the last 10 years:The single toolchain should still exist, but with the benefits of managed code, .NET and such to make development across the relevant platforms (i.e.
for the XBox 360 and PC with XNA) much more quick and easy.What actually happened:GDI is crap, they release DirectX and GDI+.
Later .NET came along, Microsoft thought, hey, we need a managed version of DirectX and created Managed DirectX.
They start thinking about interfaces for the future and realise GDI+ and Windows Forms don't cut it, apparently DirectX isn't to stray from games related stuff so they release WPF which has it's own 2D and 3D rendering libraries.
They want XBox development, using C++ or C# with DirectX would be too easy, so instead let's create a new API and set of tools, called XNA they think.
Great, and XNA is quick and easy to get to grips with, I'll give them that, in fact, it's so easy they decide to ditch Managed DirectX because it's now obsolete.
But wait, what's that?
XNA makes it easy to import content and compile it into the executable but is crap for your Windows level editors because it's not designed for loading content on the fly?
The recommendation for managed Windows apps is WPF, but what use is that when my game engine is in XNA  because it needs to run on the 360?
What about editors that require decent 2D rendering of primitive shapes rather than sprites?
WPF is great, XNA isn't so again, half the project in C# w/ XNA, half in C# w/ WPF?
Somewhere in there along came Direct2D which gives you your 2D but then it's back to C++ for half the project and C# for the other half.
So we now have Direct3D, Direct2D, GDI+, WPF, XNA and the obsoleted Managed DirectX all to do very similar tasks, but neither allowing you to do so with a single toolchain for something like an Xbox 360/PC community game that requires decent windows editors.
There are 3rd party solutions like SlimDX which is a managed wrapper for DirectX but it's still a port to XNA for the community game.
Effectively with have GDI/GDI+ for low end Windows forms 2D rendering, WPF for high end Windows Forms rendering, DirectX for C++ graphics development, XNA for Xbox and Windows development, but not for use in Windows applications that need decent 2D primitive support and to load models on the fly etc.
Oh, and if you previously jumped on the Managed DirectX bandwagon, then, well, apparently it's tough shit.I can't help feel Microsoft have really dropped the ball- DirectX could've done the lot if the project was managed properly.
Quite why they didn't stick with DirectX, keep Managed DirectX and integrate these into WPF for rendering purposes I don't know.
We've gone from a fairly unified graphics pipeline to multip</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157540</id>
	<title>Microsoft is moving the problem not fixing it</title>
	<author>rcb1974</author>
	<datestamp>1258650060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great...  So now instead of hogging too many CPU resources, IE will just hog resources on my GPU.
<br> <br>
<b>Drawbacks:</b> <br>
1)  Slows down my other applications that use my GPU (Solidworks, games, etc)<br>
2)  Causes my system to consume more electricity than if I had used a faster (more CPU or hardware resource efficient) browser.<br>
3)  Means my framerate is going to decrease if I browse the web while using IE while playing a windowed game or watching a 1080p video.  This is something I actually do since my wife sometimes likes to watch a video on display #2 while I use display #1 for other stuff.
<br>
<br>
<b>Benefit:</b> <br>
1)  Faster (more responsive) web experience.<br> <br>
Does this single benefit outweight the disadvantages?  Perhaps, but I prefer the rival browser's approach to speedier browsers -- build a browser that renders pages more <b>intelligently</b> so that rendering requires <b>fewer</b> CPU/GPU/whatever resources.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great... So now instead of hogging too many CPU resources , IE will just hog resources on my GPU .
Drawbacks : 1 ) Slows down my other applications that use my GPU ( Solidworks , games , etc ) 2 ) Causes my system to consume more electricity than if I had used a faster ( more CPU or hardware resource efficient ) browser .
3 ) Means my framerate is going to decrease if I browse the web while using IE while playing a windowed game or watching a 1080p video .
This is something I actually do since my wife sometimes likes to watch a video on display # 2 while I use display # 1 for other stuff .
Benefit : 1 ) Faster ( more responsive ) web experience .
Does this single benefit outweight the disadvantages ?
Perhaps , but I prefer the rival browser 's approach to speedier browsers -- build a browser that renders pages more intelligently so that rendering requires fewer CPU/GPU/whatever resources .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great...  So now instead of hogging too many CPU resources, IE will just hog resources on my GPU.
Drawbacks: 
1)  Slows down my other applications that use my GPU (Solidworks, games, etc)
2)  Causes my system to consume more electricity than if I had used a faster (more CPU or hardware resource efficient) browser.
3)  Means my framerate is going to decrease if I browse the web while using IE while playing a windowed game or watching a 1080p video.
This is something I actually do since my wife sometimes likes to watch a video on display #2 while I use display #1 for other stuff.
Benefit: 
1)  Faster (more responsive) web experience.
Does this single benefit outweight the disadvantages?
Perhaps, but I prefer the rival browser's approach to speedier browsers -- build a browser that renders pages more intelligently so that rendering requires fewer CPU/GPU/whatever resources.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157910</id>
	<title>ActiveX</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258651140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe we can finally get viruses and malware running on our GPU's to ease the burden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we can finally get viruses and malware running on our GPU 's to ease the burden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we can finally get viruses and malware running on our GPU's to ease the burden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158860</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258653960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because the standards are created by academics who have no clue how actual people use the web (seriously, it took CSS until version 3 to get columns!?) and simultaneously hate Microsoft. The only Microsoft innovation that's made it back into the standards is xmlHttpRequest. Which is a shame, because I could do some badass scripting if Firefox supported document.readyState.</p><p>It doesn't help that competing browsers are (generally) more dedicated to Microsoft hatred than to improving the web experience. Adding innerHTML to Firefox (or the standards) would hurt nothing, and instantly make thousands of IE-only sites Firefox compatible. But they won't add it, because the standard specifies the much worse-named textContent.</p><p>But, hey, in another 5 years, if we're lucky, we might have columns.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because the standards are created by academics who have no clue how actual people use the web ( seriously , it took CSS until version 3 to get columns ! ?
) and simultaneously hate Microsoft .
The only Microsoft innovation that 's made it back into the standards is xmlHttpRequest .
Which is a shame , because I could do some badass scripting if Firefox supported document.readyState.It does n't help that competing browsers are ( generally ) more dedicated to Microsoft hatred than to improving the web experience .
Adding innerHTML to Firefox ( or the standards ) would hurt nothing , and instantly make thousands of IE-only sites Firefox compatible .
But they wo n't add it , because the standard specifies the much worse-named textContent.But , hey , in another 5 years , if we 're lucky , we might have columns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because the standards are created by academics who have no clue how actual people use the web (seriously, it took CSS until version 3 to get columns!?
) and simultaneously hate Microsoft.
The only Microsoft innovation that's made it back into the standards is xmlHttpRequest.
Which is a shame, because I could do some badass scripting if Firefox supported document.readyState.It doesn't help that competing browsers are (generally) more dedicated to Microsoft hatred than to improving the web experience.
Adding innerHTML to Firefox (or the standards) would hurt nothing, and instantly make thousands of IE-only sites Firefox compatible.
But they won't add it, because the standard specifies the much worse-named textContent.But, hey, in another 5 years, if we're lucky, we might have columns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158898</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because performance benchmarks != standards</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because performance benchmarks ! = standards</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because performance benchmarks != standards</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157766</id>
	<title>Great... Just what we need...</title>
	<author>Daenks</author>
	<datestamp>1258650660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great... Just what we need... Virii infecting our video cards. I can see it now

Tech: "I just cant get rid of this thing, every time i reboot it comes back!"
Supervisor: "Have you tried replacing the video card?"</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great... Just what we need... Virii infecting our video cards .
I can see it now Tech : " I just cant get rid of this thing , every time i reboot it comes back !
" Supervisor : " Have you tried replacing the video card ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great... Just what we need... Virii infecting our video cards.
I can see it now

Tech: "I just cant get rid of this thing, every time i reboot it comes back!
"
Supervisor: "Have you tried replacing the video card?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157106</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are three main reasons why browsers suffer from horrendous memory usage:</p><p>1) Real-world HTML is fucking difficult to parse, mainly because so much effort has to be made to handle horribly incorrect HTML. This makes the HTML parsing code extremely complex (see Gecko's or WebKit's parsing code if you don't believe me), and prone to memory leaks.</p><p>2) JavaScript. Because JavaScript is often embedded within HTML, many global references are held to objects and data that aren't really needed any longer. This makes the JavaScript garbage collector pretty ineffective a lot of the time. Given the stupidity of many web developers, it's not unusual to find pages that hold onto thousands of arrays of thousands of elements each. It gets even worse with Firefox, which uses JavaScript for most of its UI, as well as many of its plugins. References held by those plugins never get collected during the entire browser session, while at least the per-page references to get cleared when the page is navigated away from.</p><p>3) Browsers written in C++. Even when using shared\_ptr or similar classes, it's too easy to leak memory when using C++. Given that today's browsers consist of millions of lines of C++, it's no wonder that there are so many memory leaks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are three main reasons why browsers suffer from horrendous memory usage : 1 ) Real-world HTML is fucking difficult to parse , mainly because so much effort has to be made to handle horribly incorrect HTML .
This makes the HTML parsing code extremely complex ( see Gecko 's or WebKit 's parsing code if you do n't believe me ) , and prone to memory leaks.2 ) JavaScript .
Because JavaScript is often embedded within HTML , many global references are held to objects and data that are n't really needed any longer .
This makes the JavaScript garbage collector pretty ineffective a lot of the time .
Given the stupidity of many web developers , it 's not unusual to find pages that hold onto thousands of arrays of thousands of elements each .
It gets even worse with Firefox , which uses JavaScript for most of its UI , as well as many of its plugins .
References held by those plugins never get collected during the entire browser session , while at least the per-page references to get cleared when the page is navigated away from.3 ) Browsers written in C + + .
Even when using shared \ _ptr or similar classes , it 's too easy to leak memory when using C + + .
Given that today 's browsers consist of millions of lines of C + + , it 's no wonder that there are so many memory leaks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are three main reasons why browsers suffer from horrendous memory usage:1) Real-world HTML is fucking difficult to parse, mainly because so much effort has to be made to handle horribly incorrect HTML.
This makes the HTML parsing code extremely complex (see Gecko's or WebKit's parsing code if you don't believe me), and prone to memory leaks.2) JavaScript.
Because JavaScript is often embedded within HTML, many global references are held to objects and data that aren't really needed any longer.
This makes the JavaScript garbage collector pretty ineffective a lot of the time.
Given the stupidity of many web developers, it's not unusual to find pages that hold onto thousands of arrays of thousands of elements each.
It gets even worse with Firefox, which uses JavaScript for most of its UI, as well as many of its plugins.
References held by those plugins never get collected during the entire browser session, while at least the per-page references to get cleared when the page is navigated away from.3) Browsers written in C++.
Even when using shared\_ptr or similar classes, it's too easy to leak memory when using C++.
Given that today's browsers consist of millions of lines of C++, it's no wonder that there are so many memory leaks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158574</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1258653120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You may not be using it wrong, but you seem to have poor luck, the instance of Firefox I am typing this in has 4 open windows, 20 or 30 tabs and has accumulated about 86 hours of cpu time since I launched it (September 26th), and it is still only using about 600 megabytes of private memory, after peaking at about 1.1 gigabytes (this is with FF 3.5.2 on a reasonably up to date XP; I should probably restart things soon in order to pick up recent security updates...).</p><p>My usual guess is that flash is what is causing your problems; if you haven't already, maybe try something like flashblock.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You may not be using it wrong , but you seem to have poor luck , the instance of Firefox I am typing this in has 4 open windows , 20 or 30 tabs and has accumulated about 86 hours of cpu time since I launched it ( September 26th ) , and it is still only using about 600 megabytes of private memory , after peaking at about 1.1 gigabytes ( this is with FF 3.5.2 on a reasonably up to date XP ; I should probably restart things soon in order to pick up recent security updates... ) .My usual guess is that flash is what is causing your problems ; if you have n't already , maybe try something like flashblock .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may not be using it wrong, but you seem to have poor luck, the instance of Firefox I am typing this in has 4 open windows, 20 or 30 tabs and has accumulated about 86 hours of cpu time since I launched it (September 26th), and it is still only using about 600 megabytes of private memory, after peaking at about 1.1 gigabytes (this is with FF 3.5.2 on a reasonably up to date XP; I should probably restart things soon in order to pick up recent security updates...).My usual guess is that flash is what is causing your problems; if you haven't already, maybe try something like flashblock.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157504</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258649940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Browser level spell check?  Why not an OS-wide spell check, like OSX?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Browser level spell check ?
Why not an OS-wide spell check , like OSX ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Browser level spell check?
Why not an OS-wide spell check, like OSX?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157080</id>
	<title>Re:"will tap the power of the PC's graphics card..</title>
	<author>the linux geek</author>
	<datestamp>1258648740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The highly advanced 8-core system I'm using now can't run it.

Unless they've brought back IE support for Solaris/SPARC.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The highly advanced 8-core system I 'm using now ca n't run it .
Unless they 've brought back IE support for Solaris/SPARC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The highly advanced 8-core system I'm using now can't run it.
Unless they've brought back IE support for Solaris/SPARC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158492</id>
	<title>DirectX?  Really?</title>
	<author>PerfectionLost</author>
	<datestamp>1258652880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Couldn't they use their newly open sourced<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net platform?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't they use their newly open sourced .net platform ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Couldn't they use their newly open sourced .net platform?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162942</id>
	<title>Trust Me!</title>
	<author>DarthVain</author>
	<datestamp>1258623960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK am I the only one to think of the Apple commercial when reading the headline?</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I doubt I will every buy an Apple in the foreseeable future, but they make one heck of a commercial!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I think I just like John Hodgman... he funny!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK am I the only one to think of the Apple commercial when reading the headline ? Do n't get me wrong , I doubt I will every buy an Apple in the foreseeable future , but they make one heck of a commercial !
: ) I think I just like John Hodgman... he funny !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK am I the only one to think of the Apple commercial when reading the headline?Don't get me wrong, I doubt I will every buy an Apple in the foreseeable future, but they make one heck of a commercial!
:)I think I just like John Hodgman... he funny!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158584</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258653120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ACID tests show that the browser is compliant with the standards.  The a lot of code behind the scenes tests how errors are reported.  Yes Acid3 does test the speed but it's mostly about setting properties (Valid and invalid) and making sure the proper things happen according to the specs. I believe it also tests SVG and custom Fonts which is why Firefox currently doesn't pass it with 100\%.</p><p>It's not really like a DirectX speed test to see how fast your computer is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACID tests show that the browser is compliant with the standards .
The a lot of code behind the scenes tests how errors are reported .
Yes Acid3 does test the speed but it 's mostly about setting properties ( Valid and invalid ) and making sure the proper things happen according to the specs .
I believe it also tests SVG and custom Fonts which is why Firefox currently does n't pass it with 100 \ % .It 's not really like a DirectX speed test to see how fast your computer is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACID tests show that the browser is compliant with the standards.
The a lot of code behind the scenes tests how errors are reported.
Yes Acid3 does test the speed but it's mostly about setting properties (Valid and invalid) and making sure the proper things happen according to the specs.
I believe it also tests SVG and custom Fonts which is why Firefox currently doesn't pass it with 100\%.It's not really like a DirectX speed test to see how fast your computer is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30165266</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258631520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From Wikipedia ("Windows Explorer" - subheading 'Overview'):</p><p>While &ldquo;Windows Explorer&rdquo; is a term most commonly used to describe the file management aspect of the operating system, the Explorer process also houses the operating system&rsquo;s search functionality and File Type associations (based on filename extensions), and is responsible for displaying the desktop icons, the Start Menu, the Taskbar, and the Control Panel. Collectively, these features are known as the Windows Shell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From Wikipedia ( " Windows Explorer " - subheading 'Overview ' ) : While    Windows Explorer    is a term most commonly used to describe the file management aspect of the operating system , the Explorer process also houses the operating system    s search functionality and File Type associations ( based on filename extensions ) , and is responsible for displaying the desktop icons , the Start Menu , the Taskbar , and the Control Panel .
Collectively , these features are known as the Windows Shell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Wikipedia ("Windows Explorer" - subheading 'Overview'):While “Windows Explorer” is a term most commonly used to describe the file management aspect of the operating system, the Explorer process also houses the operating system’s search functionality and File Type associations (based on filename extensions), and is responsible for displaying the desktop icons, the Start Menu, the Taskbar, and the Control Panel.
Collectively, these features are known as the Windows Shell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159368</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are, yet parrot on about ACID all day?</p></div><p>I don't like tomatoes, but I like unit testing.  I thought I'd mention that as long as we're tossing out non-sequiturs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are , yet parrot on about ACID all day ? I do n't like tomatoes , but I like unit testing .
I thought I 'd mention that as long as we 're tossing out non-sequiturs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are, yet parrot on about ACID all day?I don't like tomatoes, but I like unit testing.
I thought I'd mention that as long as we're tossing out non-sequiturs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158390</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>theJML</author>
	<datestamp>1258652580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've had this problem in the past... it's not usually Firefox, the two times I've had the issue it's been a plugin, or Xorg (well, specifically Xorg using the close source proprietary ATI driver). I've dropped my extra plugin number down and have found it to be a much better browsing experience. The only things I regularly run now are Adblock, No Script and Forecastbar Enhanced. With about 20 tabs open and two windows, it's running at about 300MB now.</p><p>Really the biggest way to speed up browsing speed is to disable ads. There's no real way around that fact, it takes time to display complex flash animations and java script light boxes asking you to buy crap and take part in surveys... blocking that speeds it up by quite a bit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've had this problem in the past... it 's not usually Firefox , the two times I 've had the issue it 's been a plugin , or Xorg ( well , specifically Xorg using the close source proprietary ATI driver ) .
I 've dropped my extra plugin number down and have found it to be a much better browsing experience .
The only things I regularly run now are Adblock , No Script and Forecastbar Enhanced .
With about 20 tabs open and two windows , it 's running at about 300MB now.Really the biggest way to speed up browsing speed is to disable ads .
There 's no real way around that fact , it takes time to display complex flash animations and java script light boxes asking you to buy crap and take part in surveys... blocking that speeds it up by quite a bit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've had this problem in the past... it's not usually Firefox, the two times I've had the issue it's been a plugin, or Xorg (well, specifically Xorg using the close source proprietary ATI driver).
I've dropped my extra plugin number down and have found it to be a much better browsing experience.
The only things I regularly run now are Adblock, No Script and Forecastbar Enhanced.
With about 20 tabs open and two windows, it's running at about 300MB now.Really the biggest way to speed up browsing speed is to disable ads.
There's no real way around that fact, it takes time to display complex flash animations and java script light boxes asking you to buy crap and take part in surveys... blocking that speeds it up by quite a bit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157738</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>mspohr</author>
	<datestamp>1258647780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just checked my Firefox memory usage after having 20+ tabs open all day... 250 Meg.  I understand older versions had a problem with memory and would gradually take over the machine but not in the last year or so.<p>
BTW, why does Explorer (not IE, just basic file list explorer) take up 40 Meg?  What on earth is it doing with all that memory just to display a list of files?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just checked my Firefox memory usage after having 20 + tabs open all day... 250 Meg .
I understand older versions had a problem with memory and would gradually take over the machine but not in the last year or so .
BTW , why does Explorer ( not IE , just basic file list explorer ) take up 40 Meg ?
What on earth is it doing with all that memory just to display a list of files ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just checked my Firefox memory usage after having 20+ tabs open all day... 250 Meg.
I understand older versions had a problem with memory and would gradually take over the machine but not in the last year or so.
BTW, why does Explorer (not IE, just basic file list explorer) take up 40 Meg?
What on earth is it doing with all that memory just to display a list of files?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159646</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Kaboom13</author>
	<datestamp>1258656540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have firefox 3.5.5 on Win7, 10+ add-ons, and have left firefox open with 4-5 different windows, with 10+ tabs each, open for 4 days now.  My memory usage is 80 megs.  It sounds like either 1 particular add-on you use has nasty memory leaks, or the problem is more likely with flash or some other plug-in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have firefox 3.5.5 on Win7 , 10 + add-ons , and have left firefox open with 4-5 different windows , with 10 + tabs each , open for 4 days now .
My memory usage is 80 megs .
It sounds like either 1 particular add-on you use has nasty memory leaks , or the problem is more likely with flash or some other plug-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have firefox 3.5.5 on Win7, 10+ add-ons, and have left firefox open with 4-5 different windows, with 10+ tabs each, open for 4 days now.
My memory usage is 80 megs.
It sounds like either 1 particular add-on you use has nasty memory leaks, or the problem is more likely with flash or some other plug-in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158266</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258652160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Funny how strongly stating things as if they were facts doesn't actually make them facts.</p><p>Internet Explorer first shipped in Aug 1995.</p><p>HTML 2.0 became a standard in Dec of 1995.<br>CSS1 became a standard in Dec. of 1996.</p><p>IE reached its peak market share in 2003 with IE6 (which released in 2001)<br>The current darling of the world, CSS2.1 became a standard in 2004.</p><p>(Hint: The dates with the bigger numbers mean that they came *after* the dates with the smaller numbers)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Funny how strongly stating things as if they were facts does n't actually make them facts.Internet Explorer first shipped in Aug 1995.HTML 2.0 became a standard in Dec of 1995.CSS1 became a standard in Dec. of 1996.IE reached its peak market share in 2003 with IE6 ( which released in 2001 ) The current darling of the world , CSS2.1 became a standard in 2004 .
( Hint : The dates with the bigger numbers mean that they came * after * the dates with the smaller numbers )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Funny how strongly stating things as if they were facts doesn't actually make them facts.Internet Explorer first shipped in Aug 1995.HTML 2.0 became a standard in Dec of 1995.CSS1 became a standard in Dec. of 1996.IE reached its peak market share in 2003 with IE6 (which released in 2001)The current darling of the world, CSS2.1 became a standard in 2004.
(Hint: The dates with the bigger numbers mean that they came *after* the dates with the smaller numbers)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158334</id>
	<title>Really though,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258652400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we just care about standards. Implement CSS3 and you're golden.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we just care about standards .
Implement CSS3 and you 're golden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we just care about standards.
Implement CSS3 and you're golden.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163472</id>
	<title>Welcome to the 20th Century</title>
	<author>iliketrash</author>
	<datestamp>1258625400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Welcome to the 20th Century, Microsoft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Welcome to the 20th Century , Microsoft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Welcome to the 20th Century, Microsoft.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162370</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258621980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why doesn't blink work in Firefox 3?  That's a Mozilla-based browser</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does n't blink work in Firefox 3 ?
That 's a Mozilla-based browser</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why doesn't blink work in Firefox 3?
That's a Mozilla-based browser</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156540</id>
	<title>Sweet!</title>
	<author>KingSkippus</author>
	<datestamp>1258647060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sweet!  I can't wait to replace Firefox on my MacBook Pro and my desktop Ubuntu box with this, it will run <i>awesome</i> on those!  I wonder when I'll be able to get AdBlock for it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweet !
I ca n't wait to replace Firefox on my MacBook Pro and my desktop Ubuntu box with this , it will run awesome on those !
I wonder when I 'll be able to get AdBlock for it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweet!
I can't wait to replace Firefox on my MacBook Pro and my desktop Ubuntu box with this, it will run awesome on those!
I wonder when I'll be able to get AdBlock for it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157624</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258650240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not offtopic; both IE and FF do have serious, serious problems with memory after any amount of time spent browsing. I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF and it'll hit the 1.8GB barrier within two to three days, and crash.</p> </div><p>please post your list of 89 addons/plugins..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not offtopic ; both IE and FF do have serious , serious problems with memory after any amount of time spent browsing .
I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF and it 'll hit the 1.8GB barrier within two to three days , and crash .
please post your list of 89 addons/plugins. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not offtopic; both IE and FF do have serious, serious problems with memory after any amount of time spent browsing.
I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF and it'll hit the 1.8GB barrier within two to three days, and crash.
please post your list of 89 addons/plugins..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156870</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1258648080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh... you're in the wrong place. This is where we bitch about IE, not Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh... you 're in the wrong place .
This is where we bitch about IE , not Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh... you're in the wrong place.
This is where we bitch about IE, not Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156962</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>tuppe666</author>
	<datestamp>1258648380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox had vastly reduced memory as of 3 footprint link to old article <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars</a> [arstechnica.com].
<p>
The Irony of you using a memory hungry OS and complaining about an application that diplays MEDIA is clearly lost on you.
</p><p>
Personally I want to access my information as quickly as possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox had vastly reduced memory as of 3 footprint link to old article http : //arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars [ arstechnica.com ] .
The Irony of you using a memory hungry OS and complaining about an application that diplays MEDIA is clearly lost on you .
Personally I want to access my information as quickly as possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox had vastly reduced memory as of 3 footprint link to old article http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/03/firefox-3-goes-on-a-diet-eats-less-memory-than-ie-and-opera.ars [arstechnica.com].
The Irony of you using a memory hungry OS and complaining about an application that diplays MEDIA is clearly lost on you.
Personally I want to access my information as quickly as possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30165194</id>
	<title>Why does Microsoft continue to devlop Trident?</title>
	<author>brunes69</author>
	<datestamp>1258631220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I honestly don't understand why Microsoft continues to dump millions of dollars of development into a product that makes them no money.</p><p>If they want to continue IE, then why not just ditch Trident and base it off Webkit like everyone else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I honestly do n't understand why Microsoft continues to dump millions of dollars of development into a product that makes them no money.If they want to continue IE , then why not just ditch Trident and base it off Webkit like everyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I honestly don't understand why Microsoft continues to dump millions of dollars of development into a product that makes them no money.If they want to continue IE, then why not just ditch Trident and base it off Webkit like everyone else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</id>
	<title>Forget performance</title>
	<author>\_PimpDaddy7\_</author>
	<datestamp>1258647120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't believe all these browsers talking about speed and performance loading. It's a website for peet's sake!</p><p>FIX THE MEMORY ISSUES!</p><p>I have 4 add ons for FireFox(latest version) in Win7.  4 tabs open for 30+ minutes and the memory usage skyrockets.  After 2 hours Firefox gets very sluggish.  The same for IE.</p><p>My pages load fast enough. FIX the damn memory issues.  Stop adding features. Stop trying to make the app sexy.</p><p>Fix the real issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't believe all these browsers talking about speed and performance loading .
It 's a website for peet 's sake ! FIX THE MEMORY ISSUES ! I have 4 add ons for FireFox ( latest version ) in Win7 .
4 tabs open for 30 + minutes and the memory usage skyrockets .
After 2 hours Firefox gets very sluggish .
The same for IE.My pages load fast enough .
FIX the damn memory issues .
Stop adding features .
Stop trying to make the app sexy.Fix the real issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't believe all these browsers talking about speed and performance loading.
It's a website for peet's sake!FIX THE MEMORY ISSUES!I have 4 add ons for FireFox(latest version) in Win7.
4 tabs open for 30+ minutes and the memory usage skyrockets.
After 2 hours Firefox gets very sluggish.
The same for IE.My pages load fast enough.
FIX the damn memory issues.
Stop adding features.
Stop trying to make the app sexy.Fix the real issues.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156780</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Corbets</author>
	<datestamp>1258647840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30\% compared to 90\% of chrome, Safari and Opera.</p><p>The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the  Microsoft world and the Real, Normal world.</p><p>Shame, really. So many years, and the leopard has yet to change its spots.</p></div><p>So buy a snow leopard instead....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30 \ % compared to 90 \ % of chrome , Safari and Opera.The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the Microsoft world and the Real , Normal world.Shame , really .
So many years , and the leopard has yet to change its spots.So buy a snow leopard instead... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30\% compared to 90\% of chrome, Safari and Opera.The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the  Microsoft world and the Real, Normal world.Shame, really.
So many years, and the leopard has yet to change its spots.So buy a snow leopard instead....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>rshol</author>
	<datestamp>1258647960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>...built in, in line spell check, now that every other frikin' browser on the planet has one.  And how about the ability to make permanent exceptions for sites with mismatching SSL certs so I don't get a warning message every time I access webmin on my linux server on my home network?

Seriously, most of the time I'm on the web I'm in Gmail or on a forum.  Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity.  Speed and Acid 3 compliance do not keep me using Firefox, spell check, and adblock do.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...built in , in line spell check , now that every other frikin ' browser on the planet has one .
And how about the ability to make permanent exceptions for sites with mismatching SSL certs so I do n't get a warning message every time I access webmin on my linux server on my home network ?
Seriously , most of the time I 'm on the web I 'm in Gmail or on a forum .
Spell check is not a luxury , its a necessity .
Speed and Acid 3 compliance do not keep me using Firefox , spell check , and adblock do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...built in, in line spell check, now that every other frikin' browser on the planet has one.
And how about the ability to make permanent exceptions for sites with mismatching SSL certs so I don't get a warning message every time I access webmin on my linux server on my home network?
Seriously, most of the time I'm on the web I'm in Gmail or on a forum.
Spell check is not a luxury, its a necessity.
Speed and Acid 3 compliance do not keep me using Firefox, spell check, and adblock do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157224</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>at\_slashdot</author>
	<datestamp>1258649100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 90\% of chrome, Safari and Opera.-- I had impression that all these browser get 100/100.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>90 \ % of chrome , Safari and Opera.-- I had impression that all these browser get 100/100 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 90\% of chrome, Safari and Opera.-- I had impression that all these browser get 100/100.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157556</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>nmg196</author>
	<datestamp>1258650120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you're confused.  eeplorer.exe is not a list of files - it's the whole user-interface of Windows - including the taskbar, desktop and window manager and any shell-extension plugins you've got hosted by it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you 're confused .
eeplorer.exe is not a list of files - it 's the whole user-interface of Windows - including the taskbar , desktop and window manager and any shell-extension plugins you 've got hosted by it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you're confused.
eeplorer.exe is not a list of files - it's the whole user-interface of Windows - including the taskbar, desktop and window manager and any shell-extension plugins you've got hosted by it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159018</id>
	<title>Performance...REALLY??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If that were the case then why are they NOT going to implement the features in HTML 5 that really make the web perform. You know stuff like WebSockets, full-duplex event / message based communications. Or  properly implement globalStorage or applicationCache? From what I can see, they really don't care about the 'web' at all. I think IE 9 is going to be all about Office as a service.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If that were the case then why are they NOT going to implement the features in HTML 5 that really make the web perform .
You know stuff like WebSockets , full-duplex event / message based communications .
Or properly implement globalStorage or applicationCache ?
From what I can see , they really do n't care about the 'web ' at all .
I think IE 9 is going to be all about Office as a service .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If that were the case then why are they NOT going to implement the features in HTML 5 that really make the web perform.
You know stuff like WebSockets, full-duplex event / message based communications.
Or  properly implement globalStorage or applicationCache?
From what I can see, they really don't care about the 'web' at all.
I think IE 9 is going to be all about Office as a service.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159302</id>
	<title>Bull Pucky!</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1258655340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        In order to actually compete one must compete against all merits of other software. Microsoft products cost money. Open source products usually do not cost money. Guess who wins! I'll take Firefox even if it becomes slightly slower than Microsoft's offerings. I'll also keep my money in my pocket when i take Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to actually compete one must compete against all merits of other software .
Microsoft products cost money .
Open source products usually do not cost money .
Guess who wins !
I 'll take Firefox even if it becomes slightly slower than Microsoft 's offerings .
I 'll also keep my money in my pocket when i take Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        In order to actually compete one must compete against all merits of other software.
Microsoft products cost money.
Open source products usually do not cost money.
Guess who wins!
I'll take Firefox even if it becomes slightly slower than Microsoft's offerings.
I'll also keep my money in my pocket when i take Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674</id>
	<title>"will tap the power of the PC's graphics card..."</title>
	<author>Anita Coney</author>
	<datestamp>1258647420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we 'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is another way of saying that IE9 will be such a resource hog that even the highly advanced eight core systems we'll be using in a few years will not be powerful enough to run it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160248</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258658160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but the standard at that time is not the standard you are looking at now. The current standard is partly from Microsoft, or the result of competition of new features  between MS and netscape.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but the standard at that time is not the standard you are looking at now .
The current standard is partly from Microsoft , or the result of competition of new features between MS and netscape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but the standard at that time is not the standard you are looking at now.
The current standard is partly from Microsoft, or the result of competition of new features  between MS and netscape.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158760</id>
	<title>Re:Not a good fix</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258653660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That would be interesting to see - not just on Windows, but also on linux with compiz et al.  I often have periods when my CPU monitor reports idle, but my fans suddenly start running at mid-speed...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would be interesting to see - not just on Windows , but also on linux with compiz et al .
I often have periods when my CPU monitor reports idle , but my fans suddenly start running at mid-speed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would be interesting to see - not just on Windows, but also on linux with compiz et al.
I often have periods when my CPU monitor reports idle, but my fans suddenly start running at mid-speed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156776</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158280</id>
	<title>Power Consumption</title>
	<author>Bazar</author>
	<datestamp>1258652220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What i'm just wondering about is how it'll affect the power consumption on laptops.<br>Since currently browsers don't use it, it would be using its lowest powered rendering mode.</p><p>Now if you start getting IE to render using 2d acceleration, if the drivers aren't nice, its going to kick in full and start draining a lot more power.</p><p>Aero on vista was much the same. Pretty looks, faster power drain.</p><p>It'll be interesting to see how it works, if it can be disabled, and if it will drain more power on well written graphic drivers</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What i 'm just wondering about is how it 'll affect the power consumption on laptops.Since currently browsers do n't use it , it would be using its lowest powered rendering mode.Now if you start getting IE to render using 2d acceleration , if the drivers are n't nice , its going to kick in full and start draining a lot more power.Aero on vista was much the same .
Pretty looks , faster power drain.It 'll be interesting to see how it works , if it can be disabled , and if it will drain more power on well written graphic drivers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What i'm just wondering about is how it'll affect the power consumption on laptops.Since currently browsers don't use it, it would be using its lowest powered rendering mode.Now if you start getting IE to render using 2d acceleration, if the drivers aren't nice, its going to kick in full and start draining a lot more power.Aero on vista was much the same.
Pretty looks, faster power drain.It'll be interesting to see how it works, if it can be disabled, and if it will drain more power on well written graphic drivers</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157086</id>
	<title>Just wait, you'll see...</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258648800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Our next version will be better than anything that is out there now." --- Microsoft has been saying that for years about all of their software.  <p>.<br>Why does Microsoft think the rest of the software world will remain stationary while Microsoft lumbers forwards at its own bloated pace.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Our next version will be better than anything that is out there now .
" --- Microsoft has been saying that for years about all of their software .
.Why does Microsoft think the rest of the software world will remain stationary while Microsoft lumbers forwards at its own bloated pace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Our next version will be better than anything that is out there now.
" --- Microsoft has been saying that for years about all of their software.
.Why does Microsoft think the rest of the software world will remain stationary while Microsoft lumbers forwards at its own bloated pace.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159336</id>
	<title>Will DirectX's use affect virtualization users?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the browser will be requiring DirectX for rendering, wont that affect people who run XP/Win7 virtualized to test their apps in different browsers?</p><p>I know that some virtualization software packages have limited support for DirectX (VirtualBox, VMWare?) but some don't to my knowledge (Xen, KVM).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the browser will be requiring DirectX for rendering , wont that affect people who run XP/Win7 virtualized to test their apps in different browsers ? I know that some virtualization software packages have limited support for DirectX ( VirtualBox , VMWare ?
) but some do n't to my knowledge ( Xen , KVM ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the browser will be requiring DirectX for rendering, wont that affect people who run XP/Win7 virtualized to test their apps in different browsers?I know that some virtualization software packages have limited support for DirectX (VirtualBox, VMWare?
) but some don't to my knowledge (Xen, KVM).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602</id>
	<title>JS performance</title>
	<author>orngjce223</author>
	<datestamp>1258647240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hardware acceleration of text and pictures is one thing.  Javascript performance is quite another.  What with all this AJAX and Javascript stuff out on the web these days, what IE badly needs is a really good Javascript engine.  Two school computers, one running Chrome (out of my home directory - bad sysadmin!) and the other running IE8, have very obvious differences in their Javascript speed on a benchmarking test (Sunspider, FYI).  (They're school computers, their hardware should be exactly the same, their uptime should be exactly the same, etc. etc.)</p><p>So, where is Microsoft going in this category?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hardware acceleration of text and pictures is one thing .
Javascript performance is quite another .
What with all this AJAX and Javascript stuff out on the web these days , what IE badly needs is a really good Javascript engine .
Two school computers , one running Chrome ( out of my home directory - bad sysadmin !
) and the other running IE8 , have very obvious differences in their Javascript speed on a benchmarking test ( Sunspider , FYI ) .
( They 're school computers , their hardware should be exactly the same , their uptime should be exactly the same , etc .
etc. ) So , where is Microsoft going in this category ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hardware acceleration of text and pictures is one thing.
Javascript performance is quite another.
What with all this AJAX and Javascript stuff out on the web these days, what IE badly needs is a really good Javascript engine.
Two school computers, one running Chrome (out of my home directory - bad sysadmin!
) and the other running IE8, have very obvious differences in their Javascript speed on a benchmarking test (Sunspider, FYI).
(They're school computers, their hardware should be exactly the same, their uptime should be exactly the same, etc.
etc.)So, where is Microsoft going in this category?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163362</id>
	<title>3d Internet Monopoly ?</title>
	<author>yossarianuk</author>
	<datestamp>1258625100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm thinking they may be doing this the challenge the other 3d internets...<br>
<br>
i.e<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-<br>
<a href="http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/</a> [google.com]    (google/mozilla)
<br>
<br>
Seeing as they they still control 90\% of the world pc's (when will the people wake up ?) they could easily create a 3d net api that relied on DirectX - locking people into i.e...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking they may be doing this the challenge the other 3d internets.. . i.e : - http : //code.google.com/apis/o3d/ [ google.com ] ( google/mozilla ) Seeing as they they still control 90 \ % of the world pc 's ( when will the people wake up ?
) they could easily create a 3d net api that relied on DirectX - locking people into i.e.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking they may be doing this the challenge the other 3d internets...

i.e :-
http://code.google.com/apis/o3d/ [google.com]    (google/mozilla)


Seeing as they they still control 90\% of the world pc's (when will the people wake up ?
) they could easily create a 3d net api that relied on DirectX - locking people into i.e...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158780</id>
	<title>Re:It's the addons, stupid!</title>
	<author>thePig</author>
	<datestamp>1258653720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, as far as Microsoft is concerned, it might be a good idea for them to incorporate AdBlock in IE.<br>With a lions share in web surfing, an automatically set AdBlock might be a good way to decrease Googles revenue and thus decrease its competitive power.<br>It might be unethical and counter-productive for human innovation, but I think for Microsoft it would be a good stratergy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , as far as Microsoft is concerned , it might be a good idea for them to incorporate AdBlock in IE.With a lions share in web surfing , an automatically set AdBlock might be a good way to decrease Googles revenue and thus decrease its competitive power.It might be unethical and counter-productive for human innovation , but I think for Microsoft it would be a good stratergy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, as far as Microsoft is concerned, it might be a good idea for them to incorporate AdBlock in IE.With a lions share in web surfing, an automatically set AdBlock might be a good way to decrease Googles revenue and thus decrease its competitive power.It might be unethical and counter-productive for human innovation, but I think for Microsoft it would be a good stratergy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159436</id>
	<title>so pushing it to the video card</title>
	<author>Khashishi</author>
	<datestamp>1258655820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, what good is that going to do if my netbook doesn't have a video card?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , what good is that going to do if my netbook does n't have a video card ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, what good is that going to do if my netbook doesn't have a video card?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159422</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day, 250 Meg was pretty close to all the memory...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , 250 Meg was pretty close to all the memory.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, 250 Meg was pretty close to all the memory...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30169044</id>
	<title>Re:Add-On System</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258710540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh yeah I also want working keyboard shortcuts.</p></div><p>Yeah, ability to finally use browser keyboard shortcuts when a flash "animation" is focused would be really nice.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh yeah I also want working keyboard shortcuts.Yeah , ability to finally use browser keyboard shortcuts when a flash " animation " is focused would be really nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh yeah I also want working keyboard shortcuts.Yeah, ability to finally use browser keyboard shortcuts when a flash "animation" is focused would be really nice.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158678</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258653360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insightful?! There is a clear difference between arbitrary performance metrics and well defined standards compliance testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ? !
There is a clear difference between arbitrary performance metrics and well defined standards compliance testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?!
There is a clear difference between arbitrary performance metrics and well defined standards compliance testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30167814</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an abbreviated history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Free almost always wins in a battle.</p></div><p>Umm... no? Look at Linux, as a classic example.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free almost always wins in a battle.Umm... no ? Look at Linux , as a classic example .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Free almost always wins in a battle.Umm... no? Look at Linux, as a classic example.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</id>
	<title>Help with history</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258647840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please correct me if I'm wrong or fill me in on what I'm missing but the thing that's always bugged me about web standards is when they started MS had just about 100\% of the market share.  When the standards were ratified that put MS' compliance at about 10\% or whatever.  Why were the standards targeted to a non-existent browser?<br> <br>Don't get me wrong standards are important and MS needs to get in line with them; I just don't understand why the standards are what they are</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please correct me if I 'm wrong or fill me in on what I 'm missing but the thing that 's always bugged me about web standards is when they started MS had just about 100 \ % of the market share .
When the standards were ratified that put MS ' compliance at about 10 \ % or whatever .
Why were the standards targeted to a non-existent browser ?
Do n't get me wrong standards are important and MS needs to get in line with them ; I just do n't understand why the standards are what they are</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please correct me if I'm wrong or fill me in on what I'm missing but the thing that's always bugged me about web standards is when they started MS had just about 100\% of the market share.
When the standards were ratified that put MS' compliance at about 10\% or whatever.
Why were the standards targeted to a non-existent browser?
Don't get me wrong standards are important and MS needs to get in line with them; I just don't understand why the standards are what they are</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158424</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1258652700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 insightful.  I went and looked it up on wikipedia.</p><p>The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was founded in 1994.  Microsoft's Internet Exploder was not released until a year later, and then it went hog-wild to ignore the W3C standards.  (In fairness, so too did Netscape Navigator with adding new extensions to HTML.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 insightful .
I went and looked it up on wikipedia.The World Wide Web Consortium ( W3C ) was founded in 1994 .
Microsoft 's Internet Exploder was not released until a year later , and then it went hog-wild to ignore the W3C standards .
( In fairness , so too did Netscape Navigator with adding new extensions to HTML .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 insightful.
I went and looked it up on wikipedia.The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was founded in 1994.
Microsoft's Internet Exploder was not released until a year later, and then it went hog-wild to ignore the W3C standards.
(In fairness, so too did Netscape Navigator with adding new extensions to HTML.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158146</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258651860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>ACID isn't a benchmark, it's a web standards compliance test. It basically gives a glimpse of how much a browser conforms to the W3C standards. From the ACID3 site:<p> <a href="http://acid3.acidtests.org/" title="acidtests.org">"Acid3</a> [acidtests.org] is the third in a series of test pages written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.</p><p>Acid3 is primarily testing specifications for &ldquo;Web 2.0 dynamic Web applications. Also there<br>
are some visual rendering tests, including webfonts. Here is the list of specifications tested:</p><ul>
<li>DOM2 Core</li><li>DOM2 Events</li><li>DOM2 HTML</li><li>DOM2 Range</li><li>DOM2 Style (getComputedStyle, )</li><li>DOM2 Traversal (NodeIterator, TreeWalker)</li><li>DOM2 Views (defaultView)</li><li>ECMAScript</li><li>HTML4 (&lt;object&gt;, &lt;iframe&gt;, )</li><li>HTTP (Content-Type, 404, )</li><li>Media Queries</li><li>Selectors (:lang,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:nth-child(), combinators, dynamic changes, )</li><li>XHTML 1.0</li><li>CSS2 (@font-face)</li><li>CSS2.1 (&rsquo;inline-block&rsquo;, &lsquo;pre-wrap&rsquo;, parsing)</li><li>CSS3 Color (rgba(), hsla(), )</li><li>CSS3 UI (&rsquo;cursor&rsquo;)</li><li>data: URIs</li><li>SVG (SVG Animation, SVG Fonts, )"</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>ACID is n't a benchmark , it 's a web standards compliance test .
It basically gives a glimpse of how much a browser conforms to the W3C standards .
From the ACID3 site : " Acid3 [ acidtests.org ] is the third in a series of test pages written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.Acid3 is primarily testing specifications for    Web 2.0 dynamic Web applications .
Also there are some visual rendering tests , including webfonts .
Here is the list of specifications tested : DOM2 CoreDOM2 EventsDOM2 HTMLDOM2 RangeDOM2 Style ( getComputedStyle , ) DOM2 Traversal ( NodeIterator , TreeWalker ) DOM2 Views ( defaultView ) ECMAScriptHTML4 ( , , ) HTTP ( Content-Type , 404 , ) Media QueriesSelectors ( : lang , : nth-child ( ) , combinators , dynamic changes , ) XHTML 1.0CSS2 ( @ font-face ) CSS2.1 (    inline-block    ,    pre-wrap    , parsing ) CSS3 Color ( rgba ( ) , hsla ( ) , ) CSS3 UI (    cursor    ) data : URIsSVG ( SVG Animation , SVG Fonts , ) "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ACID isn't a benchmark, it's a web standards compliance test.
It basically gives a glimpse of how much a browser conforms to the W3C standards.
From the ACID3 site: "Acid3 [acidtests.org] is the third in a series of test pages written to help browser vendors ensure proper support for web standards in their products.Acid3 is primarily testing specifications for “Web 2.0 dynamic Web applications.
Also there
are some visual rendering tests, including webfonts.
Here is the list of specifications tested:
DOM2 CoreDOM2 EventsDOM2 HTMLDOM2 RangeDOM2 Style (getComputedStyle, )DOM2 Traversal (NodeIterator, TreeWalker)DOM2 Views (defaultView)ECMAScriptHTML4 (, , )HTTP (Content-Type, 404, )Media QueriesSelectors (:lang, :nth-child(), combinators, dynamic changes, )XHTML 1.0CSS2 (@font-face)CSS2.1 (’inline-block’, ‘pre-wrap’, parsing)CSS3 Color (rgba(), hsla(), )CSS3 UI (’cursor’)data: URIsSVG (SVG Animation, SVG Fonts, )"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157446</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258649820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please mod parent troll for not understanding the basics of how a browser works, and repeating the same outdated shit over and over. As I have yet to see Firefox behave like this on any system I have access to, I call bullshit on his statements.</p><p>To parent poster: Next time, bring me some reproducible proof. Then we can talk. Else you simply fail. Sorry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please mod parent troll for not understanding the basics of how a browser works , and repeating the same outdated shit over and over .
As I have yet to see Firefox behave like this on any system I have access to , I call bullshit on his statements.To parent poster : Next time , bring me some reproducible proof .
Then we can talk .
Else you simply fail .
Sorry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please mod parent troll for not understanding the basics of how a browser works, and repeating the same outdated shit over and over.
As I have yet to see Firefox behave like this on any system I have access to, I call bullshit on his statements.To parent poster: Next time, bring me some reproducible proof.
Then we can talk.
Else you simply fail.
Sorry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157786</id>
	<title>Is IE a lost cause?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258650720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS stopped IE development after they won the browser war, then Firefox came around and they scrambled to get back on the ball. Today IE is easily 5 years behind every other major browser (FF, Chrome, Safari, even Opera). Worse yet, they are proceeding at a slower pace than their competition. By the time IE developers unfubar their DOM, properly implement CSS 2/HTML4, and speedup their JS engine so that at least it's not dog slow the other browsers will have nailed CSS3/HTML5 and will be working toward in-browser javascript that runs as fast as native code.</p><p>Microsoft's worse IE-related nightmare is a hugely popular site which just plain doesn't work on IE. That sort of thing will create a sea-change in browser market share over night. And given the standings of CSS3, javascript performance, and other features like canvas, that day is very likely fast approaching.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS stopped IE development after they won the browser war , then Firefox came around and they scrambled to get back on the ball .
Today IE is easily 5 years behind every other major browser ( FF , Chrome , Safari , even Opera ) .
Worse yet , they are proceeding at a slower pace than their competition .
By the time IE developers unfubar their DOM , properly implement CSS 2/HTML4 , and speedup their JS engine so that at least it 's not dog slow the other browsers will have nailed CSS3/HTML5 and will be working toward in-browser javascript that runs as fast as native code.Microsoft 's worse IE-related nightmare is a hugely popular site which just plain does n't work on IE .
That sort of thing will create a sea-change in browser market share over night .
And given the standings of CSS3 , javascript performance , and other features like canvas , that day is very likely fast approaching .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS stopped IE development after they won the browser war, then Firefox came around and they scrambled to get back on the ball.
Today IE is easily 5 years behind every other major browser (FF, Chrome, Safari, even Opera).
Worse yet, they are proceeding at a slower pace than their competition.
By the time IE developers unfubar their DOM, properly implement CSS 2/HTML4, and speedup their JS engine so that at least it's not dog slow the other browsers will have nailed CSS3/HTML5 and will be working toward in-browser javascript that runs as fast as native code.Microsoft's worse IE-related nightmare is a hugely popular site which just plain doesn't work on IE.
That sort of thing will create a sea-change in browser market share over night.
And given the standings of CSS3, javascript performance, and other features like canvas, that day is very likely fast approaching.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156816</id>
	<title>Sorry I was about to post,</title>
	<author>Icegryphon</author>
	<datestamp>1258647960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But then my iexplore.exe locked up with explorer.exe.</htmltext>
<tokenext>But then my iexplore.exe locked up with explorer.exe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But then my iexplore.exe locked up with explorer.exe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157978</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1258651320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I, however, am not surprised that Safari and Chrome Beat out firefox, as FF is starting to become as bloated as IE in almost all respects. Normally if I'm going for speed I use Opera, but thats not to say its my favourite.</p><p>The problem is with Javascript is that in some ways the web is starting to fade it out. Yes - there is AJAX, but surprisingly enough, AJAX does not have to use Javascript. Most of my professional web applications are using AJAX but are using C# or VB.NET (with ASP) to handle everything.</p><p>Now - not a whole lot of popular places on the net are using<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET right now. But perhaps <a href="http://developers.slashdot.org/story/09/11/16/2223248/Microsoft-Open-Sources-NET-Micro-Framework" title="slashdot.org">THIS </a> [slashdot.org] article will jolt your memory. Microsoft wants to fade out JS. Why? Because they don't want to build an engine for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I , however , am not surprised that Safari and Chrome Beat out firefox , as FF is starting to become as bloated as IE in almost all respects .
Normally if I 'm going for speed I use Opera , but thats not to say its my favourite.The problem is with Javascript is that in some ways the web is starting to fade it out .
Yes - there is AJAX , but surprisingly enough , AJAX does not have to use Javascript .
Most of my professional web applications are using AJAX but are using C # or VB.NET ( with ASP ) to handle everything.Now - not a whole lot of popular places on the net are using .NET right now .
But perhaps THIS [ slashdot.org ] article will jolt your memory .
Microsoft wants to fade out JS .
Why ? Because they do n't want to build an engine for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, however, am not surprised that Safari and Chrome Beat out firefox, as FF is starting to become as bloated as IE in almost all respects.
Normally if I'm going for speed I use Opera, but thats not to say its my favourite.The problem is with Javascript is that in some ways the web is starting to fade it out.
Yes - there is AJAX, but surprisingly enough, AJAX does not have to use Javascript.
Most of my professional web applications are using AJAX but are using C# or VB.NET (with ASP) to handle everything.Now - not a whole lot of popular places on the net are using .NET right now.
But perhaps THIS  [slashdot.org] article will jolt your memory.
Microsoft wants to fade out JS.
Why? Because they don't want to build an engine for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157398</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158580</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>dissy</author>
	<datestamp>1258653120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes you are wrong.</p><p>Web standards were created in 1992 with some design work back from 1991.</p><p>In case you did not know, web standards required TCP/IP standards to be there as well to even work.</p><p>Microsoft had no operating system in 1992 that supported either of those things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes you are wrong.Web standards were created in 1992 with some design work back from 1991.In case you did not know , web standards required TCP/IP standards to be there as well to even work.Microsoft had no operating system in 1992 that supported either of those things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes you are wrong.Web standards were created in 1992 with some design work back from 1991.In case you did not know, web standards required TCP/IP standards to be there as well to even work.Microsoft had no operating system in 1992 that supported either of those things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159642</id>
	<title>Two Words:</title>
	<author>crhylove</author>
	<datestamp>1258656540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ad.<br>Block.</p><p>Otherwise, GTFO!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ad.Block.Otherwise , GTFO !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ad.Block.Otherwise, GTFO!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157068</id>
	<title>Changing the masses..</title>
	<author>mxh83</author>
	<datestamp>1258648740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is their way of saying the IE 9 will still not comply with standards, but will do all this other stuff which once you code you page for, you're fucked.  After I read the contents of internal emails within MS which were revealed in the court cases, I decided to take some slightly more "aggressive" techniques to promote Firefox (I don't trust chrome).  The other day I was helping the IT guy with what to put in our new organization's computers before he imaged everything and deployed the images.  I finished up that and then when ahead and deleted the IE icon from the desktop (made FF default) and from pinned items.  I did the same to my parents' computer.  I told them "The e is not the internet, the red one is."  I also, whenever I get a chance, pass casual comments like "you're still using IE..heh" (social proof is a powerful thing).  That's just some of the stuff that comes to mind.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is their way of saying the IE 9 will still not comply with standards , but will do all this other stuff which once you code you page for , you 're fucked .
After I read the contents of internal emails within MS which were revealed in the court cases , I decided to take some slightly more " aggressive " techniques to promote Firefox ( I do n't trust chrome ) .
The other day I was helping the IT guy with what to put in our new organization 's computers before he imaged everything and deployed the images .
I finished up that and then when ahead and deleted the IE icon from the desktop ( made FF default ) and from pinned items .
I did the same to my parents ' computer .
I told them " The e is not the internet , the red one is .
" I also , whenever I get a chance , pass casual comments like " you 're still using IE..heh " ( social proof is a powerful thing ) .
That 's just some of the stuff that comes to mind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is their way of saying the IE 9 will still not comply with standards, but will do all this other stuff which once you code you page for, you're fucked.
After I read the contents of internal emails within MS which were revealed in the court cases, I decided to take some slightly more "aggressive" techniques to promote Firefox (I don't trust chrome).
The other day I was helping the IT guy with what to put in our new organization's computers before he imaged everything and deployed the images.
I finished up that and then when ahead and deleted the IE icon from the desktop (made FF default) and from pinned items.
I did the same to my parents' computer.
I told them "The e is not the internet, the red one is.
"  I also, whenever I get a chance, pass casual comments like "you're still using IE..heh" (social proof is a powerful thing).
That's just some of the stuff that comes to mind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157136</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>ByOhTek</author>
	<datestamp>1258648920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real? They are still in business?</p><p>I think I'd rather have MS based stuff than their garbage. *blech*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real ?
They are still in business ? I think I 'd rather have MS based stuff than their garbage .
* blech *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real?
They are still in business?I think I'd rather have MS based stuff than their garbage.
*blech*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30168774</id>
	<title>No Thanks...</title>
	<author>twoHats</author>
	<datestamp>1258660200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's see - 8 tries - 8 fails, but the 9th is sure to be the one!<br> <br>

I wouldn't use this browser if it was free and came with a $20 bill...but keep trying MS, keep trying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see - 8 tries - 8 fails , but the 9th is sure to be the one !
I would n't use this browser if it was free and came with a $ 20 bill...but keep trying MS , keep trying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see - 8 tries - 8 fails, but the 9th is sure to be the one!
I wouldn't use this browser if it was free and came with a $20 bill...but keep trying MS, keep trying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163344</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258625040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of 3D browser extensions in the works, which are either very high level (O3D) or based on OpenGL (WebGL, Canvas3D). Perhaps Microsoft wants to push a Direct3D based solution before something else becomes well established?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of 3D browser extensions in the works , which are either very high level ( O3D ) or based on OpenGL ( WebGL , Canvas3D ) .
Perhaps Microsoft wants to push a Direct3D based solution before something else becomes well established ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of 3D browser extensions in the works, which are either very high level (O3D) or based on OpenGL (WebGL, Canvas3D).
Perhaps Microsoft wants to push a Direct3D based solution before something else becomes well established?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157690</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1258650420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is actually vitally important for Microsoft given that their Chief Software Architect said Microsoft's future lies 100\% in the cloud. If Windows Live services are the core of Microsoft's future, then performance in this regard is crucial.</p><p>Then again a Microsoft Evangelist once told me that the Outlook and Exchange developers are kept mostly seperate becase Exchange is part of the server division, where as Outlook is developed within the Office division. In big companies, consistent design goals are rarely realized.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is actually vitally important for Microsoft given that their Chief Software Architect said Microsoft 's future lies 100 \ % in the cloud .
If Windows Live services are the core of Microsoft 's future , then performance in this regard is crucial.Then again a Microsoft Evangelist once told me that the Outlook and Exchange developers are kept mostly seperate becase Exchange is part of the server division , where as Outlook is developed within the Office division .
In big companies , consistent design goals are rarely realized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is actually vitally important for Microsoft given that their Chief Software Architect said Microsoft's future lies 100\% in the cloud.
If Windows Live services are the core of Microsoft's future, then performance in this regard is crucial.Then again a Microsoft Evangelist once told me that the Outlook and Exchange developers are kept mostly seperate becase Exchange is part of the server division, where as Outlook is developed within the Office division.
In big companies, consistent design goals are rarely realized.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157156</id>
	<title>And this will make a difference  because?</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1258648920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The major newcomer is a revamped rendering engine that will tap the power of the PC's graphics card to accelerate text and graphics performance.</p></div><p>Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the actual rendering of the browser window isn't the bottleneck.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>As well as improving performance, Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces.</p></div><p>Doesn't <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleartype" title="wikipedia.org">ClearType</a> [wikipedia.org] do this already?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The major newcomer is a revamped rendering engine that will tap the power of the PC 's graphics card to accelerate text and graphics performance.Correct me if I 'm wrong , but it seems to me that the actual rendering of the browser window is n't the bottleneck.As well as improving performance , Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web , with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces.Does n't ClearType [ wikipedia.org ] do this already ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The major newcomer is a revamped rendering engine that will tap the power of the PC's graphics card to accelerate text and graphics performance.Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the actual rendering of the browser window isn't the bottleneck.As well as improving performance, Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces.Doesn't ClearType [wikipedia.org] do this already?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157372</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>hoggoth</author>
	<datestamp>1258649520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because Microsoft didn't invent the Internet. As a matter of fact they were very late to the game.<br>MOSAIC was first, then Mozilla/Netscape. Microsoft realized very late that the Internet was going to be important and threw something together.<br>The standards had already been well under way by the time Microsoft got into the game.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Microsoft did n't invent the Internet .
As a matter of fact they were very late to the game.MOSAIC was first , then Mozilla/Netscape .
Microsoft realized very late that the Internet was going to be important and threw something together.The standards had already been well under way by the time Microsoft got into the game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Microsoft didn't invent the Internet.
As a matter of fact they were very late to the game.MOSAIC was first, then Mozilla/Netscape.
Microsoft realized very late that the Internet was going to be important and threw something together.The standards had already been well under way by the time Microsoft got into the game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157280</id>
	<title>Let it go! IE is expensive .... for webdevelopers!</title>
	<author>Jaro</author>
	<datestamp>1258649280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why can't MS just let IE die. It's been such a fail since around IE 5/6 when websites started to use more CSS and JavaScript (or shall be say JScript?). I don't know how many hours and hours I have lost to IE because it wouldn't render a website correctly which every other freaking browser (FF, Safari, Opera, Chrome) renders correctly. I feel MS should pay compensation to every webdeveloper out there due to all the headaches their complete piece of junk has caused everyone. I'm not a person who normally hates, I'm all for loving, sharing and giving but I hate, hate, hate - HATE! - IE and MS. The only reason why I had to buy Parallels Desktop for my Mac (80&euro;) was so I don't have to turn on my old Windows system to test websites with IE. MS should give me back those 80&euro;, at least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't MS just let IE die .
It 's been such a fail since around IE 5/6 when websites started to use more CSS and JavaScript ( or shall be say JScript ? ) .
I do n't know how many hours and hours I have lost to IE because it would n't render a website correctly which every other freaking browser ( FF , Safari , Opera , Chrome ) renders correctly .
I feel MS should pay compensation to every webdeveloper out there due to all the headaches their complete piece of junk has caused everyone .
I 'm not a person who normally hates , I 'm all for loving , sharing and giving but I hate , hate , hate - HATE !
- IE and MS. The only reason why I had to buy Parallels Desktop for my Mac ( 80    ) was so I do n't have to turn on my old Windows system to test websites with IE .
MS should give me back those 80    , at least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't MS just let IE die.
It's been such a fail since around IE 5/6 when websites started to use more CSS and JavaScript (or shall be say JScript?).
I don't know how many hours and hours I have lost to IE because it wouldn't render a website correctly which every other freaking browser (FF, Safari, Opera, Chrome) renders correctly.
I feel MS should pay compensation to every webdeveloper out there due to all the headaches their complete piece of junk has caused everyone.
I'm not a person who normally hates, I'm all for loving, sharing and giving but I hate, hate, hate - HATE!
- IE and MS. The only reason why I had to buy Parallels Desktop for my Mac (80€) was so I don't have to turn on my old Windows system to test websites with IE.
MS should give me back those 80€, at least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157810</id>
	<title>Irrelevance.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258650780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The browser that continues to offer ad blocking features is the one I will continue to use, regardless of memory/performance/GUI/etc. issues.</p><p>I don't care about bigger, better, faster, more. I care about not being annoyed while browsing the Internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The browser that continues to offer ad blocking features is the one I will continue to use , regardless of memory/performance/GUI/etc .
issues.I do n't care about bigger , better , faster , more .
I care about not being annoyed while browsing the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The browser that continues to offer ad blocking features is the one I will continue to use, regardless of memory/performance/GUI/etc.
issues.I don't care about bigger, better, faster, more.
I care about not being annoyed while browsing the Internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158098</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>ClosedEyesSeeing</author>
	<datestamp>1258651680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should just really build spell check into the operating system. 'They' being any OS creator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should just really build spell check into the operating system .
'They ' being any OS creator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should just really build spell check into the operating system.
'They' being any OS creator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156834</id>
	<title>png</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1258648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Still no full PNG support, therefore still a dud of a product.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Still no full PNG support , therefore still a dud of a product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Still no full PNG support, therefore still a dud of a product.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30166670</id>
	<title>Re:Resolution independence</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1258638120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you specify CSS font sizes in points (as in "12pt") rather than pixels, any decent browser will scale it to match DPI. IE will do so as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you specify CSS font sizes in points ( as in " 12pt " ) rather than pixels , any decent browser will scale it to match DPI .
IE will do so as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you specify CSS font sizes in points (as in "12pt") rather than pixels, any decent browser will scale it to match DPI.
IE will do so as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</id>
	<title>Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>jkrise</author>
	<datestamp>1258647060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30\% compared to 90\% of chrome, Safari and Opera.</p><p>The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the  Microsoft world and the Real, Normal world.</p><p>Shame, really. So many years, and the leopard has yet to change its spots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30 \ % compared to 90 \ % of chrome , Safari and Opera.The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the Microsoft world and the Real , Normal world.Shame , really .
So many years , and the leopard has yet to change its spots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ACID conformance is still at a dismal 30\% compared to 90\% of chrome, Safari and Opera.The internet willstill be divided into 2 - the  Microsoft world and the Real, Normal world.Shame, really.
So many years, and the leopard has yet to change its spots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158374</id>
	<title>What IE needs from a poweruser perspective...</title>
	<author>mr exploiter</author>
	<datestamp>1258652520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>is an extension framework as powerful as Firefox's one. Microsoft has been improving speed, conformance to standards, and security, to catch up and even surpass in same cases firefox, but it still needs a good variety of plugins to be taken seriously by power users. The ones I'd need to change back to IE are the IE equivalent of adblock and vimperator.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is an extension framework as powerful as Firefox 's one .
Microsoft has been improving speed , conformance to standards , and security , to catch up and even surpass in same cases firefox , but it still needs a good variety of plugins to be taken seriously by power users .
The ones I 'd need to change back to IE are the IE equivalent of adblock and vimperator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is an extension framework as powerful as Firefox's one.
Microsoft has been improving speed, conformance to standards, and security, to catch up and even surpass in same cases firefox, but it still needs a good variety of plugins to be taken seriously by power users.
The ones I'd need to change back to IE are the IE equivalent of adblock and vimperator.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158930</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258654200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are actually doing work in this category as well. They admit they are not there yet but it is a main point of focus. Check here: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-First-look-at-the-new-JS-Engine/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are actually doing work in this category as well .
They admit they are not there yet but it is a main point of focus .
Check here : http : //channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-First-look-at-the-new-JS-Engine/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are actually doing work in this category as well.
They admit they are not there yet but it is a main point of focus.
Check here: http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-9-First-look-at-the-new-JS-Engine/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156820</id>
	<title>Re:Forget performance</title>
	<author>mxh83</author>
	<datestamp>1258647960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like you have other issues, because firefox behaves well with memory nowadays.  In fact it's been found to be one of the more efficient ones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like you have other issues , because firefox behaves well with memory nowadays .
In fact it 's been found to be one of the more efficient ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like you have other issues, because firefox behaves well with memory nowadays.
In fact it's been found to be one of the more efficient ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158360</id>
	<title>Wow! Microsoft is looking out for YOU!</title>
	<author>gun26</author>
	<datestamp>1258652460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No need to waste time with a slow IE any more, kidz! With the all-new blazing fast IE9, your computer will be pwned in no time flat! Really!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No need to waste time with a slow IE any more , kidz !
With the all-new blazing fast IE9 , your computer will be pwned in no time flat !
Really !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No need to waste time with a slow IE any more, kidz!
With the all-new blazing fast IE9, your computer will be pwned in no time flat!
Really!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157820</id>
	<title>Anti-aliasing only 20 years late!</title>
	<author>jamiethehutt</author>
	<datestamp>1258650780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces.</i> <br> <br>
So TWENTY years after Acorn added anti-aliasing that ran extremely quickly on a 16Mhz RISC computer Microsoft realise that they can do it too, only they require a Direct-X compatible graphics card... <br> <br>Yay for innovation...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web , with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces .
So TWENTY years after Acorn added anti-aliasing that ran extremely quickly on a 16Mhz RISC computer Microsoft realise that they can do it too , only they require a Direct-X compatible graphics card... Yay for innovation.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft claims the hardware acceleration will enhance the appearance and readability of fonts on the web, with sub-pixel positioning that eradicates the jagged edges on large typefaces.
So TWENTY years after Acorn added anti-aliasing that ran extremely quickly on a 16Mhz RISC computer Microsoft realise that they can do it too, only they require a Direct-X compatible graphics card...  Yay for innovation...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157474</id>
	<title>How many tabs?</title>
	<author>Cheech Wizard</author>
	<datestamp>1258649880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF</p> </div><p> I can't keep track of 10 to 15 tabs. I can not imagine why one would want 50 tabs open at a time. You must be quite special.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF I ca n't keep track of 10 to 15 tabs .
I can not imagine why one would want 50 tabs open at a time .
You must be quite special .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I typically keep 30-50 tabs open in FF  I can't keep track of 10 to 15 tabs.
I can not imagine why one would want 50 tabs open at a time.
You must be quite special.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158460</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Idiomatick</author>
	<datestamp>1258652760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's silly. ACID shows if something works or not. Benchmarks are speed tests that can be wildly inaccurate compared to real world testing. I mean it isn't like browsers are faking it (btw this is my browser: <a href="http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/acid3-465.png" title="zdnet.com">http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/acid3-465.png</a> [zdnet.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. unlike most browsers its not en executable, just open it in any image viewing app) as graphics card companies have.<br> <br>I don't think 100\% is necessary mind you. I do think a passing grade is a good thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's silly .
ACID shows if something works or not .
Benchmarks are speed tests that can be wildly inaccurate compared to real world testing .
I mean it is n't like browsers are faking it ( btw this is my browser : http : //i.zdnet.com/blogs/acid3-465.png [ zdnet.com ] .. unlike most browsers its not en executable , just open it in any image viewing app ) as graphics card companies have .
I do n't think 100 \ % is necessary mind you .
I do think a passing grade is a good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's silly.
ACID shows if something works or not.
Benchmarks are speed tests that can be wildly inaccurate compared to real world testing.
I mean it isn't like browsers are faking it (btw this is my browser: http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/acid3-465.png [zdnet.com] .. unlike most browsers its not en executable, just open it in any image viewing app) as graphics card companies have.
I don't think 100\% is necessary mind you.
I do think a passing grade is a good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428</id>
	<title>Re:Help with history</title>
	<author>Chris Mattern</author>
	<datestamp>1258649700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Please correct me if I'm wrong or fill me in on what I'm missing but the thing that's always bugged me about web standards is when they started MS had just about 100\% of the market share.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're wrong.  When web standards started, MS had 0\% of the market share.  Internet Explorer did not yet exist.  The standards were there first; MS decided not to support them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please correct me if I 'm wrong or fill me in on what I 'm missing but the thing that 's always bugged me about web standards is when they started MS had just about 100 \ % of the market share.You 're wrong .
When web standards started , MS had 0 \ % of the market share .
Internet Explorer did not yet exist .
The standards were there first ; MS decided not to support them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please correct me if I'm wrong or fill me in on what I'm missing but the thing that's always bugged me about web standards is when they started MS had just about 100\% of the market share.You're wrong.
When web standards started, MS had 0\% of the market share.
Internet Explorer did not yet exist.
The standards were there first; MS decided not to support them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30199600</id>
	<title>Re:Add-On System</title>
	<author>rdnetto</author>
	<datestamp>1258914300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Chrome has support for greasemonkey scripts, so that's half the addons right there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Chrome has support for greasemonkey scripts , so that 's half the addons right there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Chrome has support for greasemonkey scripts, so that's half the addons right there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30167004</id>
	<title>I can't wait!</title>
	<author>krej</author>
	<datestamp>1258640280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until I have to buy my grandma a $600 video card just to browse the web!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until I have to buy my grandma a $ 600 video card just to browse the web !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until I have to buy my grandma a $600 video card just to browse the web!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159762</id>
	<title>It will still have the number one problem...</title>
	<author>Megane</author>
	<datestamp>1258656840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...its name. Internet Exploiter, er I mean Exploder, er I mean Explorer.
</p><p>They need to change it to something marketroid-based like "Aling". Then everyone who uses their OS's default browser with default settings can be called a "Bing-Aling".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...its name .
Internet Exploiter , er I mean Exploder , er I mean Explorer .
They need to change it to something marketroid-based like " Aling " .
Then everyone who uses their OS 's default browser with default settings can be called a " Bing-Aling " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...its name.
Internet Exploiter, er I mean Exploder, er I mean Explorer.
They need to change it to something marketroid-based like "Aling".
Then everyone who uses their OS's default browser with default settings can be called a "Bing-Aling".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159346</id>
	<title>Dear Browser makers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258655520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I humbly beg you: work together on FF4/IE9 when building your new typography engines.  After dealing with IE6 bugs for years, I'm at my end.  If the two of you can't agree on a single standard for typography that is free of gotchas I will become a black hat and devote the rest of my days to running botnets who's only purpose is to mock you.

Sincerely,
Anon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I humbly beg you : work together on FF4/IE9 when building your new typography engines .
After dealing with IE6 bugs for years , I 'm at my end .
If the two of you ca n't agree on a single standard for typography that is free of gotchas I will become a black hat and devote the rest of my days to running botnets who 's only purpose is to mock you .
Sincerely , Anon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I humbly beg you: work together on FF4/IE9 when building your new typography engines.
After dealing with IE6 bugs for years, I'm at my end.
If the two of you can't agree on a single standard for typography that is free of gotchas I will become a black hat and devote the rest of my days to running botnets who's only purpose is to mock you.
Sincerely,
Anon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30165708</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an abbreviated history</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1258633320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Free almost always wins in a battle.</p></div><p>Yeah year of Linux on the Desktop!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free almost always wins in a battle.Yeah year of Linux on the Desktop !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free almost always wins in a battle.Yeah year of Linux on the Desktop!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30172718</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an abbreviated history</title>
	<author>HannethCom</author>
	<datestamp>1258739280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where I lived most people got Netscape as part of their internet package, so from most of the consumer's perspective it was free.<br>
<br>
I think more the fact that they provided it on the OS disk, then later force installed it had more to do with the reason why it became the dominant browser. That and Microsoft paying companies to make intranet solutions that only worked on IE.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where I lived most people got Netscape as part of their internet package , so from most of the consumer 's perspective it was free .
I think more the fact that they provided it on the OS disk , then later force installed it had more to do with the reason why it became the dominant browser .
That and Microsoft paying companies to make intranet solutions that only worked on IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where I lived most people got Netscape as part of their internet package, so from most of the consumer's perspective it was free.
I think more the fact that they provided it on the OS disk, then later force installed it had more to do with the reason why it became the dominant browser.
That and Microsoft paying companies to make intranet solutions that only worked on IE.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158416</id>
	<title>Re:JS performance</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258652700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The second link in the article talks about this, shows how they measure holistic performance for different types of web sites, and includes benchmarks comparing IE9 to other pre-release browsers. I don't suppose it occurred to you to actually read any of the article links.</p><p>But of course, clicking links in the summary to see if your question has already been addressed would slow down your posting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The second link in the article talks about this , shows how they measure holistic performance for different types of web sites , and includes benchmarks comparing IE9 to other pre-release browsers .
I do n't suppose it occurred to you to actually read any of the article links.But of course , clicking links in the summary to see if your question has already been addressed would slow down your posting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second link in the article talks about this, shows how they measure holistic performance for different types of web sites, and includes benchmarks comparing IE9 to other pre-release browsers.
I don't suppose it occurred to you to actually read any of the article links.But of course, clicking links in the summary to see if your question has already been addressed would slow down your posting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156694</id>
	<title>Yeah?...</title>
	<author>MikeRT</author>
	<datestamp>1258647540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>And GM and Chrysler will finally deliver a consumer vehicle that can compete successfully against the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic respectively... meanwhile, Hell's freezing temperatures will so profoundly affect the Earth's climate that the debate over global warming will be made moot.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And GM and Chrysler will finally deliver a consumer vehicle that can compete successfully against the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic respectively... meanwhile , Hell 's freezing temperatures will so profoundly affect the Earth 's climate that the debate over global warming will be made moot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And GM and Chrysler will finally deliver a consumer vehicle that can compete successfully against the Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic respectively... meanwhile, Hell's freezing temperatures will so profoundly affect the Earth's climate that the debate over global warming will be made moot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157778</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1258650720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"built in, in line spell check"</p><p>They still haven't put that in Windows where it should be, hey?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" built in , in line spell check " They still have n't put that in Windows where it should be , hey ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"built in, in line spell check"They still haven't put that in Windows where it should be, hey?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156776</id>
	<title>Not a good fix</title>
	<author>kbsoftware</author>
	<datestamp>1258647780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't sound like Microsoft will be fixing the performance, but instead just taking the problem and using other resources to help deal with it. I'd would say something like cleaning the code, fixing memory leaks etc. would be a far better way to go, but I suspect Microsoft isn't able to accomplish such a goal with any of their products.
I have (like I'm sure many here) a nice display on my desktop that shows the percentage of cpu load at any time, but with software companies like Microsoft now making use of the power of graphics cards it's time to update those cpu load programs to included the load on graphics card so I can still see the damage being done but various programs live.

And I also agree with a lot of the posts so far, it's not the speed to load/display webpages it's the memory leaks etc. that's the real problem, shifting some of that to graphics cards really won't help much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't sound like Microsoft will be fixing the performance , but instead just taking the problem and using other resources to help deal with it .
I 'd would say something like cleaning the code , fixing memory leaks etc .
would be a far better way to go , but I suspect Microsoft is n't able to accomplish such a goal with any of their products .
I have ( like I 'm sure many here ) a nice display on my desktop that shows the percentage of cpu load at any time , but with software companies like Microsoft now making use of the power of graphics cards it 's time to update those cpu load programs to included the load on graphics card so I can still see the damage being done but various programs live .
And I also agree with a lot of the posts so far , it 's not the speed to load/display webpages it 's the memory leaks etc .
that 's the real problem , shifting some of that to graphics cards really wo n't help much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't sound like Microsoft will be fixing the performance, but instead just taking the problem and using other resources to help deal with it.
I'd would say something like cleaning the code, fixing memory leaks etc.
would be a far better way to go, but I suspect Microsoft isn't able to accomplish such a goal with any of their products.
I have (like I'm sure many here) a nice display on my desktop that shows the percentage of cpu load at any time, but with software companies like Microsoft now making use of the power of graphics cards it's time to update those cpu load programs to included the load on graphics card so I can still see the damage being done but various programs live.
And I also agree with a lot of the posts so far, it's not the speed to load/display webpages it's the memory leaks etc.
that's the real problem, shifting some of that to graphics cards really won't help much.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158710</id>
	<title>Name?</title>
	<author>theJML</author>
	<datestamp>1258653540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, you mean they're not going to call it Internet Explorer 2012 and start throwing ribbons at us?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , you mean they 're not going to call it Internet Explorer 2012 and start throwing ribbons at us ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, you mean they're not going to call it Internet Explorer 2012 and start throwing ribbons at us?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30168018</id>
	<title>Re:Here's an abbreviated history</title>
	<author>aralin</author>
	<datestamp>1258651140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is some very heavy revisionist history. Good work, Mr Goebels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is some very heavy revisionist history .
Good work , Mr Goebels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is some very heavy revisionist history.
Good work, Mr Goebels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622</id>
	<title>Add-On System</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1258647300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox is my primary browser, but I'm not in love with it by any means.  It just has so many integrated Add-On that I cannot live with out.  Copy the Firefox Add-On system and I'll take a look at your browser.  <br> <br>Oh yeah I also want working keyboard shortcuts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox is my primary browser , but I 'm not in love with it by any means .
It just has so many integrated Add-On that I can not live with out .
Copy the Firefox Add-On system and I 'll take a look at your browser .
Oh yeah I also want working keyboard shortcuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox is my primary browser, but I'm not in love with it by any means.
It just has so many integrated Add-On that I cannot live with out.
Copy the Firefox Add-On system and I'll take a look at your browser.
Oh yeah I also want working keyboard shortcuts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158734</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258653600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because it tells the people (developers) that browser X might not support their features yet.<br>How easy was that?</p><p>In web dev, a browsers capability is a very important thing because it could well decide who does and who doesn't view your site / content.</p><p>Or it could be an indication that browser X has some rendering problems due to misinterpreting the spec, usual one being pixel counts of all the objects on a page.<br>I can't count how many times IE has pissed me off with incorrect counts.<br>CSS resets can usually only go so far, then you end up having to use JavaScript / conditional comments with CSS if you want it 100\% correct.<br>Lucky most IE users have no idea what that is, nevermind understand the difference between browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because it tells the people ( developers ) that browser X might not support their features yet.How easy was that ? In web dev , a browsers capability is a very important thing because it could well decide who does and who does n't view your site / content.Or it could be an indication that browser X has some rendering problems due to misinterpreting the spec , usual one being pixel counts of all the objects on a page.I ca n't count how many times IE has pissed me off with incorrect counts.CSS resets can usually only go so far , then you end up having to use JavaScript / conditional comments with CSS if you want it 100 \ % correct.Lucky most IE users have no idea what that is , nevermind understand the difference between browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because it tells the people (developers) that browser X might not support their features yet.How easy was that?In web dev, a browsers capability is a very important thing because it could well decide who does and who doesn't view your site / content.Or it could be an indication that browser X has some rendering problems due to misinterpreting the spec, usual one being pixel counts of all the objects on a page.I can't count how many times IE has pissed me off with incorrect counts.CSS resets can usually only go so far, then you end up having to use JavaScript / conditional comments with CSS if you want it 100\% correct.Lucky most IE users have no idea what that is, nevermind understand the difference between browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162306</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>LordLimecat</author>
	<datestamp>1258621800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isnt firefox lambasted for this kind of "bloat" on a regular basis?  Which is it, every browser should have these, or theyre bloat?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Isnt firefox lambasted for this kind of " bloat " on a regular basis ?
Which is it , every browser should have these , or theyre bloat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isnt firefox lambasted for this kind of "bloat" on a regular basis?
Which is it, every browser should have these, or theyre bloat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>RiotingPacifist</author>
	<datestamp>1258650240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are, yet parrot on about ACID all day?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are , yet parrot on about ACID all day ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do people realise how stupid benchmarks are, yet parrot on about ACID all day?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157046</id>
	<title>Fire up the old icons...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258648680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Better dust off the old "This site designed for..." icons again.  Thanks Microsoft, just what I wanted, to go back to the internet circa 1997!  Should we dig out the hampster dance, too?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Better dust off the old " This site designed for... " icons again .
Thanks Microsoft , just what I wanted , to go back to the internet circa 1997 !
Should we dig out the hampster dance , too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Better dust off the old "This site designed for..." icons again.
Thanks Microsoft, just what I wanted, to go back to the internet circa 1997!
Should we dig out the hampster dance, too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157602</id>
	<title>Microsoft's Outside-In approach is the problem</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1258650180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has habitually depended upon the speed and power of the machines that run its software rather than optimizing for smaller, more efficient and stable object code.</p><p>Call me an old fogey (many already do) but when I started coding, I was very concerned with small and efficient object code.  I wrote in assembly language and C and coded for an environment limited to 64K.  Even though such constrictive environments are rare these days, the lessons and habits are quite valid and useful.  One should be thrifty with computer resources when writing code.  CPU cycles, memory usage, screen usage and anything else that takes up time or space should be considered.  I know that many eye-popping graphics simply take memory.  I accept that much.  But object code does not need to take as much as it does.</p><p>But Microsoft also seems to play pretty lose when it comes to slipping in extra crap into their OSes and applications.  Vista is slow and few people ever talk about why in great detail.  The encrypted data flowing through its kernel is a big part of the problem as I have heard.  But there are lots of other reasons I am sure.</p><p>Linux shows what amazing things can be done with older, less powerful hardware.  And in case no one noticed, hardware isn't getting tremendously more powerful even if various storage capacities are still increasing.  (It takes a lot of processing time and power just to move things around in memory now!  Adding more memory no longer serves to "speed up" a computer!)  Microsoft needs to go back to school and learn to write small, efficient code.  This directx approach to speeding things up is far and away the wrong approach.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has habitually depended upon the speed and power of the machines that run its software rather than optimizing for smaller , more efficient and stable object code.Call me an old fogey ( many already do ) but when I started coding , I was very concerned with small and efficient object code .
I wrote in assembly language and C and coded for an environment limited to 64K .
Even though such constrictive environments are rare these days , the lessons and habits are quite valid and useful .
One should be thrifty with computer resources when writing code .
CPU cycles , memory usage , screen usage and anything else that takes up time or space should be considered .
I know that many eye-popping graphics simply take memory .
I accept that much .
But object code does not need to take as much as it does.But Microsoft also seems to play pretty lose when it comes to slipping in extra crap into their OSes and applications .
Vista is slow and few people ever talk about why in great detail .
The encrypted data flowing through its kernel is a big part of the problem as I have heard .
But there are lots of other reasons I am sure.Linux shows what amazing things can be done with older , less powerful hardware .
And in case no one noticed , hardware is n't getting tremendously more powerful even if various storage capacities are still increasing .
( It takes a lot of processing time and power just to move things around in memory now !
Adding more memory no longer serves to " speed up " a computer !
) Microsoft needs to go back to school and learn to write small , efficient code .
This directx approach to speeding things up is far and away the wrong approach .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has habitually depended upon the speed and power of the machines that run its software rather than optimizing for smaller, more efficient and stable object code.Call me an old fogey (many already do) but when I started coding, I was very concerned with small and efficient object code.
I wrote in assembly language and C and coded for an environment limited to 64K.
Even though such constrictive environments are rare these days, the lessons and habits are quite valid and useful.
One should be thrifty with computer resources when writing code.
CPU cycles, memory usage, screen usage and anything else that takes up time or space should be considered.
I know that many eye-popping graphics simply take memory.
I accept that much.
But object code does not need to take as much as it does.But Microsoft also seems to play pretty lose when it comes to slipping in extra crap into their OSes and applications.
Vista is slow and few people ever talk about why in great detail.
The encrypted data flowing through its kernel is a big part of the problem as I have heard.
But there are lots of other reasons I am sure.Linux shows what amazing things can be done with older, less powerful hardware.
And in case no one noticed, hardware isn't getting tremendously more powerful even if various storage capacities are still increasing.
(It takes a lot of processing time and power just to move things around in memory now!
Adding more memory no longer serves to "speed up" a computer!
)  Microsoft needs to go back to school and learn to write small, efficient code.
This directx approach to speeding things up is far and away the wrong approach.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159058</id>
	<title>Silverlight, now with DirectX?</title>
	<author>BobMcD</author>
	<datestamp>1258654560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like a gaming angle, to me.</p><p>I could see subscription-based games using this platform - on the quick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like a gaming angle , to me.I could see subscription-based games using this platform - on the quick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like a gaming angle, to me.I could see subscription-based games using this platform - on the quick.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30167102</id>
	<title>Re:Resolution independence</title>
	<author>OverZealous.com</author>
	<datestamp>1258641060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I agree with the need for this for desktop applications, there are some real issues with it for web sites.  Namely, lining up graphics.</p><p>Anyone who develops intelligently already tries to define all measurements in ems.  Ems are resolution independent, and have great accuracy (3 decimal places).</p><p>However, if you want to develop any relatively complex visual design, you <i>will</i> end up with slices, and those slices must line up perfectly.  Except, when using relative measurements and scaled graphics, it doesn't always work out.  Many sites when scaled end up having weird graphic glitches, especially when using CSS sprites.</p><p>The solution is several-fold:</p><ul>
<li>We need to get the CSS border-image working in every browser.  This single-handedly could change the ability for designers to work with more advanced layouts.  (We wouldn't even need box-shadow anymore, since an all-black alpha-transparent PNG is very, very small, even if it is huge pixel-wise.)</li><li>We also need better layout components in (X)HTML.  Currently, the only way to build a web app is with tons of JavaScript manually performing layout.  It feels like I am developing code for the late 1990s.  We need boxes we can layout using relative positioning, that takes into account both width and height of the parent component.  The box model has some <i>incredibly</i> frustrating choices &mdash; like basing the width of a box on the contents, excluding border, padding, and margin &mdash; that make pure CSS solutions effectively impossible.</li><li>Another big issue, for now, is the size of alpha-transparent PNG images.  If these were more reasonable, it would be easier to design in a res-independent manner.  Bug as of now, any image that has color often ends up in the 25K+ range.  Add a handful of these in, and you can make a page load very slowly.  The only solution for this, sadly, is ensuring that everyone has access to true high-speed internet.</li></ul><p>Sometimes I get the most frustrated because the W3C specs are always so overcomplicated.  Look at border-radius, for example.  I would guess that 99\% of the use of this would be to simply specify a single radius.  Usually the designer just wants to soften the corner of a box.  However, the spec includes elliptical corners, which has to significantly complicate the design of it.  It also doesn't specify (I believe) that the content inside should be clipped automatically, leading to useless designs where interior components stick out past the radius.  (At least, that's what happens in FF, which isn't 100\% compatible.)  Of course, with border-image, we once again don't need border-radius as much.</p><p>Of course, with IE9 only <i>just now</i> supporting border-radius, and Opera not supporting it yet at all, we'll probably not see more advanced CSS+HTML-only interfaces for another 5-10 years.  By then, who knows what we'll be working on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I agree with the need for this for desktop applications , there are some real issues with it for web sites .
Namely , lining up graphics.Anyone who develops intelligently already tries to define all measurements in ems .
Ems are resolution independent , and have great accuracy ( 3 decimal places ) .However , if you want to develop any relatively complex visual design , you will end up with slices , and those slices must line up perfectly .
Except , when using relative measurements and scaled graphics , it does n't always work out .
Many sites when scaled end up having weird graphic glitches , especially when using CSS sprites.The solution is several-fold : We need to get the CSS border-image working in every browser .
This single-handedly could change the ability for designers to work with more advanced layouts .
( We would n't even need box-shadow anymore , since an all-black alpha-transparent PNG is very , very small , even if it is huge pixel-wise .
) We also need better layout components in ( X ) HTML .
Currently , the only way to build a web app is with tons of JavaScript manually performing layout .
It feels like I am developing code for the late 1990s .
We need boxes we can layout using relative positioning , that takes into account both width and height of the parent component .
The box model has some incredibly frustrating choices    like basing the width of a box on the contents , excluding border , padding , and margin    that make pure CSS solutions effectively impossible.Another big issue , for now , is the size of alpha-transparent PNG images .
If these were more reasonable , it would be easier to design in a res-independent manner .
Bug as of now , any image that has color often ends up in the 25K + range .
Add a handful of these in , and you can make a page load very slowly .
The only solution for this , sadly , is ensuring that everyone has access to true high-speed internet.Sometimes I get the most frustrated because the W3C specs are always so overcomplicated .
Look at border-radius , for example .
I would guess that 99 \ % of the use of this would be to simply specify a single radius .
Usually the designer just wants to soften the corner of a box .
However , the spec includes elliptical corners , which has to significantly complicate the design of it .
It also does n't specify ( I believe ) that the content inside should be clipped automatically , leading to useless designs where interior components stick out past the radius .
( At least , that 's what happens in FF , which is n't 100 \ % compatible .
) Of course , with border-image , we once again do n't need border-radius as much.Of course , with IE9 only just now supporting border-radius , and Opera not supporting it yet at all , we 'll probably not see more advanced CSS + HTML-only interfaces for another 5-10 years .
By then , who knows what we 'll be working on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I agree with the need for this for desktop applications, there are some real issues with it for web sites.
Namely, lining up graphics.Anyone who develops intelligently already tries to define all measurements in ems.
Ems are resolution independent, and have great accuracy (3 decimal places).However, if you want to develop any relatively complex visual design, you will end up with slices, and those slices must line up perfectly.
Except, when using relative measurements and scaled graphics, it doesn't always work out.
Many sites when scaled end up having weird graphic glitches, especially when using CSS sprites.The solution is several-fold:
We need to get the CSS border-image working in every browser.
This single-handedly could change the ability for designers to work with more advanced layouts.
(We wouldn't even need box-shadow anymore, since an all-black alpha-transparent PNG is very, very small, even if it is huge pixel-wise.
)We also need better layout components in (X)HTML.
Currently, the only way to build a web app is with tons of JavaScript manually performing layout.
It feels like I am developing code for the late 1990s.
We need boxes we can layout using relative positioning, that takes into account both width and height of the parent component.
The box model has some incredibly frustrating choices — like basing the width of a box on the contents, excluding border, padding, and margin — that make pure CSS solutions effectively impossible.Another big issue, for now, is the size of alpha-transparent PNG images.
If these were more reasonable, it would be easier to design in a res-independent manner.
Bug as of now, any image that has color often ends up in the 25K+ range.
Add a handful of these in, and you can make a page load very slowly.
The only solution for this, sadly, is ensuring that everyone has access to true high-speed internet.Sometimes I get the most frustrated because the W3C specs are always so overcomplicated.
Look at border-radius, for example.
I would guess that 99\% of the use of this would be to simply specify a single radius.
Usually the designer just wants to soften the corner of a box.
However, the spec includes elliptical corners, which has to significantly complicate the design of it.
It also doesn't specify (I believe) that the content inside should be clipped automatically, leading to useless designs where interior components stick out past the radius.
(At least, that's what happens in FF, which isn't 100\% compatible.
)  Of course, with border-image, we once again don't need border-radius as much.Of course, with IE9 only just now supporting border-radius, and Opera not supporting it yet at all, we'll probably not see more advanced CSS+HTML-only interfaces for another 5-10 years.
By then, who knows what we'll be working on!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156806</id>
	<title>Resolution independence</title>
	<author>Twinbee</author>
	<datestamp>1258647960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I look forward more to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution\_independence" title="wikipedia.org">resolution independence</a> [wikipedia.org]. It would REALLY nice to express a picture or font's width in terms of screen (or table) proportion, instead of pixels (ugh).</p><p>It would save everyone so much time. Let's hope super-super high resolution monitors (OLED anyone?) come shortly to make this more of a reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I look forward more to resolution independence [ wikipedia.org ] .
It would REALLY nice to express a picture or font 's width in terms of screen ( or table ) proportion , instead of pixels ( ugh ) .It would save everyone so much time .
Let 's hope super-super high resolution monitors ( OLED anyone ?
) come shortly to make this more of a reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I look forward more to resolution independence [wikipedia.org].
It would REALLY nice to express a picture or font's width in terms of screen (or table) proportion, instead of pixels (ugh).It would save everyone so much time.
Let's hope super-super high resolution monitors (OLED anyone?
) come shortly to make this more of a reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163600</id>
	<title>Re:Performance gap but not Conformance gap</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258625820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>it's a web standards compliance test.</p></div><p>which sounds a lot like a benchmark doesn't?<br>plus with ACID3 you missed the part where it must be completed in 'reasonable time'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's a web standards compliance test.which sounds a lot like a benchmark does n't ? plus with ACID3 you missed the part where it must be completed in 'reasonable time '</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's a web standards compliance test.which sounds a lot like a benchmark doesn't?plus with ACID3 you missed the part where it must be completed in 'reasonable time'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158146</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159548</id>
	<title>Re:"will tap the power of the PC's graphics card..</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258656240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it's really not.</p><p>I don't know if you were going for "funny" or what, but I'd expect any application that does intense page-layout-type work to use the GPU whenever possible, the benefits are enormous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it 's really not.I do n't know if you were going for " funny " or what , but I 'd expect any application that does intense page-layout-type work to use the GPU whenever possible , the benefits are enormous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it's really not.I don't know if you were going for "funny" or what, but I'd expect any application that does intense page-layout-type work to use the GPU whenever possible, the benefits are enormous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156826</id>
	<title>I wil tell you "I told you so".</title>
	<author>Tei</author>
	<datestamp>1258648020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If using direct-x, mean more direct access to the privileged code, for CSS/javascript bugs It looks like a good idea. A better javascript engine, or a better architecture, is a good idea, but giving more direct access to the hardware to something as "external" as third party javascript/css, seems a bad idea.  Microsoft, don't do that, is a bad idea.<br>IE is already very fast, faster than Firefox.  Fix all the CSS bugs, make it a better supporting the standards browse, or start another browser from scratch if the oldcodebase don't support the changes needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If using direct-x , mean more direct access to the privileged code , for CSS/javascript bugs It looks like a good idea .
A better javascript engine , or a better architecture , is a good idea , but giving more direct access to the hardware to something as " external " as third party javascript/css , seems a bad idea .
Microsoft , do n't do that , is a bad idea.IE is already very fast , faster than Firefox .
Fix all the CSS bugs , make it a better supporting the standards browse , or start another browser from scratch if the oldcodebase do n't support the changes needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If using direct-x, mean more direct access to the privileged code, for CSS/javascript bugs It looks like a good idea.
A better javascript engine, or a better architecture, is a good idea, but giving more direct access to the hardware to something as "external" as third party javascript/css, seems a bad idea.
Microsoft, don't do that, is a bad idea.IE is already very fast, faster than Firefox.
Fix all the CSS bugs, make it a better supporting the standards browse, or start another browser from scratch if the oldcodebase don't support the changes needed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156710</id>
	<title>Because revamping worked so well for Vista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258647540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things I used to like about Microsoft is that, though their initial releases were terrible, by a few years later they usually weren't bad  But nowadays it seems like everything is a rewrite that introduces new bugs.  Trident is bad enough as-is; do we really need a rewrite introducing new bugs?  And I bet that, once all is said and done, they still won't support PNG alpha...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I used to like about Microsoft is that , though their initial releases were terrible , by a few years later they usually were n't bad But nowadays it seems like everything is a rewrite that introduces new bugs .
Trident is bad enough as-is ; do we really need a rewrite introducing new bugs ?
And I bet that , once all is said and done , they still wo n't support PNG alpha.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I used to like about Microsoft is that, though their initial releases were terrible, by a few years later they usually weren't bad  But nowadays it seems like everything is a rewrite that introduces new bugs.
Trident is bad enough as-is; do we really need a rewrite introducing new bugs?
And I bet that, once all is said and done, they still won't support PNG alpha...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159748
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156870
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157690
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157468
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157280
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30169044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157372
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158930
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159768
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30166670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158836
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159548
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30167814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159112
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30199600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158760
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30172718
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30165708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157398
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30164458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157224
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157474
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30165266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30166084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158146
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30174380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30168018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30167102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_19_1359253_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156970
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156820
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156952
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157624
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157474
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156870
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156760
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157556
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30165266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157738
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158710
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157602
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157486
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158492
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162364
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158930
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157978
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159218
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157490
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157438
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158760
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157910
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157424
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156834
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30166670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30167102
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159748
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156780
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156786
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157372
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162018
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30162370
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156924
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157428
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158458
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160248
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158452
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30174380
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158266
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158314
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30166084
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159232
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30167814
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30172718
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30165708
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30168018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158860
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158836
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158898
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30159368
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158678
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158886
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158734
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158584
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158146
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30163600
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30164458
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157046
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157678
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30157156
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156606
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30160728
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30199600
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30158652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30169044
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_19_1359253.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156456
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_19_1359253.30156970
</commentlist>
</conversation>
